Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

That's not real waterfront. If you look at the Google satellite view, it's more like a mudflat.
 
Ron Newman said:
That's not real waterfront. If you look at the Google satellite view, it's more like a mudflat.
Click to expand...

Im sure we could come up with better uses than a parking lot for buses.

Again, especially within a T stop .25 mile radius.
 
Ron Newman said:
That's not real waterfront. If you look at the Google satellite view, it's more like a mudflat.
Click to expand...

True enough, Ron. It should be noted that much of the land being discussed in this thread was at one time a Frederick Law Olmstead Park.
 
jass said:
Im sure we could come up with better uses than a parking lot for buses.

Again, especially within a T stop .25 mile radius.
Click to expand...

Jass -- there's a basic law of nature -- to whit "it gotta go somewhere"

We see this in solid waste, effluent from a toilet, exhaust from combustion, prisons, and vehicles -- no matter how much recycling and other things you do - there always is something remaining that has to be disposed of in a landfill or other such "unpleasanty" place

In this case the relevant matter is "Green Buses" and what is associated with operating them at Logan

If you are going to have "Green Buses" constantly circulating all around Logan: picking up passengers at the terminals and carrying them to the Car Rental facility (ConRAC) and return; to/from satellite parking; to/from the water taxi / Hyatt Hotel; or ferrying employees to / from employee parking, etc. -- Then you need a facility somewhere near to these functions to provide routine maintenance, fueling, driver rest stop, etc. -- Where would you best locate such a facility:

1) Near to the places where the buses will be used to minimize empty travel to /fro
2) close to a T stop so that employees of the facility can commute without driving
3) as far away from the really valuable territory at an Airport in keeping with #1, #2

Realistically the only other reasonable location on airport property (see #1) would be adjacent to the Car Rental facility
 
Rather than spend two years and 20 million on planning and demo, wait two years until USAir kills off the Shuttle and give those gates to United, have Terminal B West set up as a Star Alliance Terminal, minus Lufthansa and Swiss with the USAir Club re-designated a Star Lounge(along with the liquor license from the former RCC).

Why would there be plans to replace Logan? It's far from perfect but it works pretty damn well.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
Are there any plans to build a new airport to replace logan?
Click to expand...

Back a few decades ago there were some studies of potential locations -- none would meet the requirements of:
1) size (including room for expansion),
2) location within a reasonable distance of the city and major elements of the population
3) and finally cost of land acquisition

Most of the site which were studied were former or active military reservations -- For example:
1) Hanscom is ideal as a location -- but its location is also untenable due to a specialized NIMBY known as SHARE
2) Fort Devens -- plenty of size, minor problem of Rt-2 splitting it -- but too far for people South of Boston
3) South Weymouth Naval Air -- unless you immediately closed Logan there would be major flight path contention
4) Worcester -- too far and not well situated to major transportation
5) a couple of private airports -- not large enough for expansion
6) Otis AFB on Cape Cod -- too far for much of the population

There were other considerations, no one could figure out how to locate a Boston Airport in another state -- we now have to ersatz Boston Airports in NH and RI and could have another one at the former Pease AFB in Portsmouth NH if we wanted it.

The ideal situation would have been for Worcester to have bought land in Marlboro a few decades ago for a Worcester Airport -- but they didn't and the Worcester Airport is on the wrong side of Worcester to be of much value.

So the answer is no replacement for Logan

Some potential growth of Logan can be subsumed by the smaller airports such as Manchester - Boston Regional and Providence (soon to be on the CR Providence Line) and potentially there might be some small amount of regular service into both Hanscom and Worcester -- both of which do serve as corporate airports
 
stellarfun said:
The entire project is out to bid.

http://www.massport.com/doing-business/_layouts/CapitalPrograms/detail.aspx?proj=L1129-C2

I think all Massport did was 'fund' the account that pays for the initial phase of the project. The contract is a construction manager at risk contract, which would explain the design elements.
Click to expand...

Stel -- i think you are on to it -- they are essentially funding the down payment on a house which has yet to be built -- but I think there is some sort of sotto vocce informal MOU regarding the whole thing -- such as perhaps JAL and Jet Blue?

Anyway from the official Massport RFP we can see the scope of what is involved -- I think its been a long needed enhancement which brings Logan almost to completion for the next decade

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES [edited for emphasis]
This project includes a post security passenger connection between Terminals E and C, and the two piers of Terminal B.

The Terminal B component includes:
25 ticket counter positions,
a relocated and modified passenger checkpoint with additional passenger queuing,
eight reconfigured departure lounges,
a secure passenger connection to Pier B,
concessions shell space, toilet rooms,
a ground operations cab,
in-line baggage screening systems and outbound bag makeup devices,
enhanced inbound baggage systems and claim devices,
vertical circulation,
airside improvements including:
-- reconfigured apron
-- and aircraft fueling systems
-- and all necessary airline and tenant support spaces.

The Terminal E to C secure connector component will include:
interior renovations to provide a secure passenger circulation corridor near the existing outbound bag room C3.
It will connect Terminal E Gates 1A-1E to Gates 11 and higher at Terminal C, Pier B.
An airside glass wall will provide natural light and orient passengers moving between the Terminals as well as improve passenger convenience.

The construction budget is currently estimated at approximately Seventy-One Million Dollars ($71,000,000) with an estimated construction duration of approximately EIGHTEEN (18) months.
Click to expand...

This is the equivalent of building a small terminal in the midst of a very busy International Airport

A few more tasks to do after this is one is done:

Terminal E -- West concourse 4 regular gates -- set-up to handle a really Big Airplane if needed
More and bigger International quality lounges in Terminal E
Weatherproof connector between Terminal C and E pre-Security
Moving walkway between Terminal B and C pre-Security
 
After this is finished, will all terminals be connected post-security?
 
Ron Newman said:
After this is finished, will all terminals be connected post-security?
Click to expand...

Ron -- No:

A is post-security island which is difficult to connect to B -- perhaps it could be done by a underground passage branching off the existing underground passage from the main to satellite of A

B will not now be connected to C post security -- although it could be done by simply doubling the existing corridor with a glass partition wall as is done in many of the European airports such as Frankfurt. Unfortunately, due to the way C is structured with the orphan C-40 gates and the food court and other amenities with a window view there needs to be some sort of level change (up/down/up or down/up/down) as the new corridor approaches the C gate area to avoid interference. Given the complexity -- perhaps an underground connector from B diagonally to C pier A would be simpler

I suspect that the above issues might be why we wont see those connections anytime soon unless global consolidation changes the airline business more completely
 
whighlander said:
Mass -- i thought that those projects had already been ok'd when the ConRAC was approved
Click to expand...

I think this whole project was proposed well after the ConRAC was.

Logan is a fine airport and one that has had a lot of work done to it over the last 7 or 8 years. The improvements made to the infrastructure around the airport as well as terminal upgrades have been done nicely. Logan is not a hub for any airlines so you won't see they pumping big money into the facilities (sans Delta 10 years ago).

A new airport would be nice but given the massive costs, the lack of suitable land within a reasonable distance from Boston and the massive NIMBY backlash, it won't happen any time soon.

Some food for thought: just think of what could be done to redevelop the land Logan currently sits on.......
 
mass88 said:
Some food for thought: just think of what could be done to redevelop the land Logan currently sits on.......
Click to expand...

But there's also a lot of well-located land that isn't being used to full potential, nevermind the airport - for example, industrial Everett, Chelsea waterfront, Eastie waterfront, Newmarket, Revere beach, South Bay, etc. I would much rather see better land use come to those areas than give up the proximity and convenience of Logan.
 
dshoost88 said:
I may've posted this before, but a few months ago I thought of how you could reallign the runways at Logan and totally maximize the space currently there. You guys can ignore my Urban Ring stuff on this link, just focus on the airport change:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid...&ll=42.361652,-71.004553&spn=0.042111,0.07699
Click to expand...

DSH --- are you an expert in airport design -- if you don't know why the runways are as they are -- don't bother -- each runway is optimized based on prevailing winds and interactions between the potential turbulence due to different types of aircraft

There is not much which can be done with the runways except for some lengthening -- but that requires more harbor fill -- so its not going to happen

The only exception is there is some work on lengthening the safety zones at the ends of the runways and some will involve a minimal amount of filling
 
mass88 said:
Some food for thought: just think of what could be done to redevelop the land Logan currently sits on.......
Click to expand...

Logan's location relative to Downtown is a massive boon for business people, who lobbied like heck for the third harbor tunnel (and wanted it to be six lanes). They don't really care how tall their buildings are. Given that any replacement airport would have to be at least 30 or so miles from the city, I can't think of all that many better uses for that land than the one it has right now.

The solution to the height limits problem is simple: build the tall buildings in the Back Bay and West End (or wherever the GC Garage is) where the runways aren't an issue. This has been the trend throughout the jet age, and Downtown looks quite nice from the airport as it is.

I'm not actually sure that runways need to be well-calibrated for prevailing winds as much anymore. That may be true at Logan, but only because they were first laid out for prop planes. Designers certainly study winds at any proposed airport site, but it's not the only consideration.

Personally, I don't really think the additional E gates are that big a priority. I'd be more focused on continuing the impressive interior terminal upgrades and further improving connectivity between the domestic terminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top