Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

JetBlue is running JFK-YVR daily. I could see there being sufficient demand for 2-3 flights a week if they already have a station manger there.

If they ever decided to do a Mint subfleet of A319s, that would seem like a great candidate along with BOS-PDX.
 

Air Canada has adjusted its schedule for their seasonal service to Vancouver. Seasonal daily service is going to run from June 16 - September 3 (a shorter season than last year) on B738Max equipment.

The new timings are as follows:

View attachment 37705

Prior to this, it was a morning departure from Vancouver and a afternoon departure from Boston.
I believe this was also an increase from 6x/week to daily during the operating season.
 
Delta is making its non-stop service to Lisbon year round. The flights will now operate in January and February at 5 times per week and then increase to the previously set daily service in March.
Great to see this market grow to 18 flights/week year-round and 21/week in summer.
Delta is also moving it to E. I believe it was in A before. MEX will be from A.
 
Great to see this market grow to 18 flights/week year-round and 21/week in summer.
Delta is also moving it to E. I believe it was in A before. MEX will be from A.

TAP used to run a single A330 series widebody ranging from 250 to just under 300 seats. - Now it is two A321neoLR's combining for 342 seats. I originally thought their A330's had more seats. Great for hitting both hub banks in Lisbon.
 
TAP used to run a single A330 series widebody ranging from 250 to just under 300 seats. - Now it is two A321neoLR's combining for 342 seats. I originally thought their A330's had more seats. Great for hitting both hub banks in Lisbon.

Lisbon has been very popular the last year or so. Delta saw load factors - 94.71% in September and 92.27% on October on their BOS-LIS service. I pulled those numbers from the DOT T-100s.
TAP was at 89.87% for September, 85.68% for October and 83.44% for November.
 
Lisbon has been very popular the last year or so. Delta saw load factors - 94.71% in September and 92.27% on October on their BOS-LIS service. I pulled those numbers from the DOT T-100s.
TAP was at 89.87% for September, 85.68% for October and 83.44% for November.

We did BOS-LIS on TAP in November and both of our flights were very full. I'm thrilled to see Delta on the route. I've flown TAP several times out of convenience and necessity, but I really don't like it. It's a low cost carrier in disguise. The boarding process is clunky and while 8kg for a carry-on (2kg for a personal item) is not unusual for European carriers, TAP frequently does a second round of weight checks at the gate and will charge ~$100 for overweight carry on/personal items. You'll see them sitting there with a scale and a credit card reader charging dozens of frustrated passengers. I'm sure it's lucrative and the rules are clear, but they're a bit nuts about enforcement. Not only is Delta a better product on most fronts, it's also Skyteam which works better for my travel.
 
I downloaded the passenger numbers from DOT for September-November for international markets from Logan. Here are some selections. Number of flights would be both directions combined.

Amsterdam:

1684517989437.png


Athens:

1684518025091.png


Barcelona:

1684518058984.png


Paris - Charles de Gaulle:

1684518160034.png


Doha:

1684518193672.png


Dublin:

1684518230687.png


Dubai:

1684518262276.png


Frankfurt:

1684518309011.png


Sao Paulo (the non-stop service by LATAM returned at the very end of October):

1684518336515.png


Hong Kong (Cathay running very limited service to North America during last fall and into the winter):

1684518404897.png


Seoul:

1684518431338.png


Istanbul:

1684518467616.png


London - Gatwick (just brutal loads):

1684518507883.png


London - Heathrow (only JetBlue, brutal loads):

1684518573414.png


Madrid:

1684518609612.png
 
This year we have the return of Bogota and San Salvador already under way and the the return of Mexico City at the end of the year. It's not on the level of New York, but Boston certainly has a diverse amount of international air service.
 
I downloaded the passenger numbers from DOT for September-November for international markets from Logan. Here are some selections. Number of flights would be both directions combined.

Amsterdam:

View attachment 38047

Athens:

View attachment 38048

Barcelona:

View attachment 38049

Paris - Charles de Gaulle:

View attachment 38050

Doha:

View attachment 38051

Dublin:

View attachment 38052

Dubai:

View attachment 38053

Frankfurt:

View attachment 38054

Sao Paulo (the non-stop service by LATAM returned at the very end of October):

View attachment 38055

Hong Kong (Cathay running very limited service to North America during last fall and into the winter):

View attachment 38056

Seoul:

View attachment 38057

Istanbul:

View attachment 38058

London - Gatwick (just brutal loads):

View attachment 38059

London - Heathrow (only JetBlue, brutal loads):

View attachment 38060

Madrid:

View attachment 38061


Oof, those B6 numbers are miserable. What do the other Heathrow carriers look like, if I could humbly make a request? It's such a saturated market, I'd be curious to see if it's ~50% across the board or if Jetblue just can't compete with the big players.
 
Oof, those B6 numbers are miserable. What do the other Heathrow carriers look like, if I could humbly make a request? It's such a saturated market, I'd be curious to see if it's ~50% across the board or if Jetblue just can't compete with the big players.

Norse is launching service from Gatwick to Boston starting in September, so it's only going to be tougher sledding for JetBlue. JetBlue is also using A321s with less seats than the other carriers who are using B763/B764/B772/B77W/B788/B789/B78X/A333/A339/A388. This fact only magnifies how poor their loads are. Who knows though? We'll have to wait several months to get 2023 data and they may have seen improved loads. Anecdotally, a co-worker just flew BOS-LHR-BOS on JetBlue in Mint and he said the flight looked almost full.

1684526597922.png


British Airways as a single carrier performs best load wise, which isn't surprising. They, along with their JV partner American Airlines, outperform the Delta/Virgin Atlantic JV load wise.
 
Norse is launching service from Gatwick to Boston starting in September, so it's only going to be tougher sledding for JetBlue. JetBlue is also using A321s with less seats than the other carriers who are using B763/B764/B772/B77W/B788/B789/B78X/A333/A339/A388. This fact only magnifies how poor their loads are. Who knows though? We'll have to wait several months to get 2023 data and they may have seen improved loads. Anecdotally, a co-worker just flew BOS-LHR-BOS on JetBlue in Mint and he said the flight looked almost full.

View attachment 38081

British Airways as a single carrier performs best load wise, which isn't surprising. They, along with their JV partner American Airlines, outperform the Delta/Virgin Atlantic JV load wise.

Setting aside my jetBlue loyalties for a moment, I do have an outlying question about those load factors for the airline. Unless I'm mistaken, there is not a single other A321 XLR transatlantic flight to any airport from Boston with as few seats as jetBlue's BOS-LHR route. Is the LF% based on number of booked seats for an aircraft type traditionally, or an actual % based on a simple division equation per flight? If jetBlue's A321s have fewer seats on them then the A321s going to other European destinations, I'm just wondering if the LF accounts for that. And if so, then I agree--that is an emaciated statistic. Still, though, I'd love to know to know the load factor for the business class or first class for that BOS-LHR route from the different carriers. I've heard from people in the industry that it's profitable to run a half empty aircraft as long as the business class seats are 100% occupied.
 
It's an actual percentage based on dividing the number of passengers by the number of seats offered. So it accounts for differences in air craft used. I cannot say that all of these numbers are 100% accurate because I believe a lot of it is based on airlines reporting, but these numbers at the very least are a good approximation of the number of passengers and associated load factors.

It should go without saying that a load factor does not give a proper indication of a route's financial performance. Boston and London are two of the world's largest financial centers (London is typically in the top 3, Boston is typically in the top 3 in North America) so you're going to have a lot of business traffic filling up the business and first class cabins. Coupled with cargo, you could very well make a profit flying a route at 40-60% load factor and I am sure there are plenty of carriers who do so.

Unless someone works for an airline, or a consultant who works with airlines, no one will ever know the load factors on specific classes. You can make some guesses on the yield based on the fares, but that would take a lot of time to aggregate the data.
 
Load factor is revenue seat miles divided by available seat miles. (I believe that someone flying as a non-revenue passenger doesn't count as revenue seat miles, even though the seat is occupied.)

I suspect the anemic load factors reflect that JetBlue has low brand recognition in Europe; single aisle aircraft versus double aisle planes; no connecting network (e.g., if I was flying NCE, CDG, BOS, I wouldn't even think of B6.) The Gatwick numbers were as bad as Heathrow, (Way back in the day, the DC-8-63 was a single aisle aircraft with about 250 seats. Successful when there was no alternative. IMO, the arrival of double aisle aircraft. killed off single-aisle aircraft, trans-oceanic.) I also flew Aeroflot when there was no alternative.
 

Looks like the JetBlue/American Northeast Alliance is coming to an end. A Federal Judge ruled today in agreement with the DOJ and that the carriers must part ways within 30 days.
 
Here is a glossary of terms for calculating airline revenue, expenses, etc.
https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Res_Glossary.html

Here is United's revenue per seat mile 2014-2021), Revenue per seat mile is expressed in cents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/978552/united-airlines-passenger-revenue-available-seat-mile/

A 3,500 mile flight at $0.13 per seat mile would generate revenue of $455 per average seat. The revenue component is matched with the expense component, and all is (relatively) good if the cost per seat mile is $0.11
In 2020, United lost $7 billion, a result surely of the low seat mile revenue.

Costs per available seat mile United airlines 2014-21
https://www.statista.com/statistics/978646/cost-per-available-seat-mile-united-airlines/#:~:text=This statistic depicts United Airlines,cents in the previous year.
 
Boston is typically in the top 3 in North America) so you're going to have a lot of business traffic filling up the business and first class cabins. Coupled with cargo, you could very well make a profit flying a route at 40-60% load factor and I am sure there are plenty of carriers who do so.
AFAIK, that's how UA justifies it's BOS-LHR route despite having minimal domestic feed - they have corporate clients who a) have huge airline specific contracts, and b) predominantly fly in premium cabins regardless of cost, so they know they'll make money regardless of how.many plebes fill the back of the plane. Pre-Covid, Apple alone bought 50 business class seats between SFO-PVG every day - at the time, Uniteds entire J capacity on that route was 168 seats, and Apple accounted for 7% of all UAL revenue in 2019. You account for enough revenue, they'll make something happen for you.

The other half of it being Cargo: you're probably right. AFAIK, AA's biggest cargo station isn't actually stateside - it's Heathrow. It's how AA justifies having a flight from RDU to LHR when their major CLT hub is right there - pharma companies are willing to pay lots of money for well controlled cargo conditions. Per friends who work for AA, that flight is ideal for non-revving due to the fact that so little demand connects through RDU compared to CLT.

However... I'm not sure how this really helps JetBlue. On the Cargo front they're flying an a321LR- the LR belly tank(s) take up 2 of the 10 LD3-45 slots in of themselves, and my understanding is that they have functionally Zero cargo capability once you account for passenger baggage, which isn't the case on the widebody competition. On the premium corporate passenger front, while Mint is indutibly the best premium seat domestically, it's a much more level playing field when flying intercontinental - and they're new enough to the game that I don't know that they have the corporate game when every legacy is also on the route. JetBlue also isn't a member of a global alliance, nor do they have a strong codeshare network in Europe, so it's likely really only Americans on their flights. Plus, the 321 is solidly 25, 30, minutes slower on the crossing than the wide-bodies?

I get that JetBlue is positioning itself to grow into being the next full service carrier - NYC/BOS-LON is basically the golden goose. Perhaps JetBlue is willing to stomach losses for now, but I feel like they're going to need to find some other routes where they're not playing against legacies with corporate ties, such as more leisure focused cities where they can leverage their US feed to serve airline agnostic tourists wanting to go to say, Barcelona or Venice.
 

Attachments

  • appleairlineflightsunitedsfo.jpg
    appleairlineflightsunitedsfo.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 71
Last edited:

Back
Top