Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

If Logan were to ever vacate the current site people would lobby for the return of Wood Island Park and probably win.

On another note, here's a horrifying article about what happens when airlines shift their hubs from city to city - no previous economic advantages seem enough to save them (though Boston's experience of not really being a serious hub for any airline should throw a grain of salt on its thesis):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...rminal_sickness035756.php?page=all&print=true
 
czsz said:
If Logan were to ever vacate the current site people would lobby for the return of Wood Island Park and probably win.

On another note, here's a horrifying article about what happens when airlines shift their hubs from city to city - no previous economic advantages seem enough to save them (though Boston's experience of not really being a serious hub for any airline should throw a grain of salt on its thesis):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...rminal_sickness035756.php?page=all&print=true
Click to expand...

Boston is much bigger than Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh, so I think it wouldn't run into the same problems as midsized cities...
 
cozzyd said:
Boston is much bigger than Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh, so I think it wouldn't run into the same problems as midsized cities...
Click to expand...

Not to mention St. Louis and Pittsburgh were in decay long before their respective airports lost hub status.
 
Equilibria said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't really feel like arguing about historical antecedents, prevailing winds, cross winds, etc -- although all of that was carefully studied and even adjudicated when the topic of building 14-32 the 5000 foot, one-way runway for commuter aircraft ( 32 used for landings and 14 for takeoffs -- to send more air traffic towards the open waters of Boston Harbour located to the southeast of the airfield) (5000 feet long) was on the table.

All than needs to be said to disprove your contention is that 14-32 i.e. a runway angled 140 or 320 degrees, which was being held back by NIMBYs for nearly 30 years finally opened in 2006 -- and it dramatically reduced delays by allowing smaller aircraft their own runway when winds are from the NW

Prior to 14-32 Logan's 120 aircraft operations per hour (3 runways) was cut to 40 when the wind blew from the NW after 14-32 there could be up to 80 operations per hour although the NIMBYs managed to limit its use to conditions when the wind was blowing at least 11.5kt north-west winds (NIMBY) or Massport's 10kt threshold.

As to Terminal E -- there are plenty of times a week in the evening when with several full loads for the big European carriers, the departure holding area is full. The proposed West Concourse would add more hold room and 3 or 4 gates specifically designed for the biggest planes including a pair of gates which can be combined for use with AB380.
 
Can the A380 run out of logan? It would be awesome if it could, i saw pictures when the emirates one got diverted in the summer, awesome. But given that the inability to have pre-787 asia flights was dictated by not being able to have a fully loaded plane, i would imagine this is even more true for the massive A380. Is that true?
 
The likely destinations for the A380 would be Europe, not Asia, specifically Frankfurt and London. Range shouldn't be an issue.
 
A380's can land at Logan once they've burned enough fuel from flying a long distance. They cannot take off from Logan if they're too heavy, which requires leaving much of the plane's fuel tank empty (so it can bunny hop to JFK) or even maxing out seat occupancy on the plane to 70% or 80% capacity (or some % less than 100). Cross country flights from Fort Lauderdale to LA or SF have a similar problem because the runways at FLL aren't long enough for a fully fueled jet with 100% passenger capacity to lift off the runway safely, so they only load the planes to 80% capacity.
 
dshoost88 said:
A380's can land at Logan once they've burned enough fuel from flying a long distance. They cannot take off from Logan if they're too heavy, which requires leaving much of the plane's fuel tank empty (so it can bunny hop to JFK) or even maxing out seat occupancy on the plane to 70% or 80% capacity (or some % less than 100). Cross country flights from Fort Lauderdale to LA or SF have a similar problem because the runways at FLL aren't long enough for a fully fueled jet with 100% passenger capacity to lift off the runway safely, so they only load the planes to 80% capacity.
Click to expand...

This.

czsz said:
If Logan were to ever vacate the current site people would lobby for the return of Wood Island Park and probably win.

On another note, here's a horrifying article about what happens when airlines shift their hubs from city to city - no previous economic advantages seem enough to save them (though Boston's experience of not really being a serious hub for any airline should throw a grain of salt on its thesis):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...rminal_sickness035756.php?page=all&print=true
Click to expand...

First of all, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Memphis were never mega hubs. They never had the levels, or variety of service a city like NYC, or Chicago had. Those airlines losing their hub status has to do with consolidation in the airline industry and the need to have a decent O&D base to draw from. Boston is and has never been a hub for an airline. It has been a focus city for airlines, such as Delta and American, but ever a true hub. JetBlue doesn't have a true hub designation, but Boston is easily its second largest and more important station. Boston is a massive air market and considering within a 2 hour drive of the city you have Manchester/Boston Regional, TF Green, Bradley and Portland who all have decent air service, that only shows how big the air market is.





Why don't they make Logan an airport like Osaka and have it be out in the ocean on a man made island?
 
kmp1284 said:
Not to mention St. Louis and Pittsburgh were in decay long before their respective airports lost hub status.
Click to expand...

Pittsburgh had long been on an upward trajectory (which it is continuing) before it was de-hubbed. It had nothing to do with Pittsburgh's decline--more to due to proximity to another USAir hub in PHL.
 
Others have commented that Logan is a "fine" airport. I disagree. It's very rambling and disconnected (or connections are pieced together in an ad hoc manner) and poorly signed. Given the proximity to Boston (the huge plus) it is unneccesarily time-consuming to get to your destination via public transport and the cost to hop across the harbor is relatively expensive otherwise. Is it terrible? No. But hardly a good airport. So many missed opportunities to capitalize on its size, location and market.
 
Tombstoner said:
Pittsburgh had long been on an upward trajectory (which it is continuing) before it was de-hubbed. It had nothing to do with Pittsburgh's decline--more to due to proximity to another USAir hub in PHL.
Click to expand...

Pittsuburgh's de-hubbing had little to do with Pittsburgh or PHL. It happened because USAirways insisted in the early '90s on the airport spending a huge amount of money on terminal renovations, then threatened to pull out (and ultimately did) out of spite when the airport passed that bill on in the form of rent and landing fees. STL, Columbus, Cincinnati (and soon Memphis and Cleveland) are better examples. The real issue is that cities whose economies were artificially boosted by hubs they didn't deserve are over-dependent on airlines who don't necessarily want to be there. The airlines have all the leverage.

The convenience factor for transit at Logan is an issue, but I don't think connections between terminals have ever had to be a priority. Now, if JetBlue is serious about pushing connecting traffic to European partners through here, or if it starts its own Europe flights at some point, a tight connection from C-E becomes important, which is why they're building the necessary infrastructure now.

Wigh: I won't argue, but notice the important role that "smaller" aircraft played in that story. The big planes care about wind, sure, but not as much. If Logan banned prop planes (as some large airports such as DFW have done) delays might have been ameliorated somewhat. Not that I'm advocating that - CapeAir is great for Logan.
 
From my perspective, Logan obviously never been a hub airport. Therefore, the number of people flying to logan from another part of the country and on to Europe is probably very small. Most likely if they are leaving from an airport without direct European flights, they are going through another airports hub of Chicago, Detroit, NYC, Philly, etc. Same is true if you were coming from Europe. The numbers simply didn't justify the infrastructure investment, and although the lack of connectivity is talked about a lot, I think it is a very rare instance where someone has flown in from another place to connect on to Europe.

With JetBlue making Boston almost a minihub and having very competitive prices and beginning to form partnerships, it is increasingly likely a flight from LA/seattle/austin to Dublin or London with a stop in Boston is the least cost option. So now as this thru traffic increases, or is planned to increase logan is making the investment.

Long post short, I think the lack of connectivity between terminals has been a very minor issue that has gotten overblown for a long time in the criticism of logan.
 
Perhaps connectivity is not as important as I believe. But I'm trying to think of another major city's airport with mulitiple terminals that is more poorly connected...none coming to mind. Yes, Logan is not a hub and that certainly factored into planning, but it does seem short-sighted. How hard would have been to plan for uniform underground moving sidewalks (a train would be a bridge too far)?
 
Tombstoner said:
Perhaps connectivity is not as important as I believe. But I'm trying to think of another major city's airport with mulitiple terminals that is more poorly connected...none coming to mind. Yes, Logan is not a hub and that certainly factored into planning, but it does seem short-sighted. How hard would have been to plan for uniform underground moving sidewalks (a train would be a bridge too far)?
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's not as important as you believe. Get over it.
 
JFK's terminals were only connected by AirTrain relatively recently and still don't have post-security connections.

Paris-CDG doesn't even have trains and anyone transferring flights has to rely on awful shuttle buses as they do in Boston.

While we're vaguely on the subject, can anyone explain JetBlue's logic in making Boston a "mini-hub" with JFK so closeby? Are they thinking it could be an easier/more efficient transfer to a Europe-bound flight than a JFK experience would be?
 
czsz said:
While we're vaguely on the subject, can anyone explain JetBlue's logic in making Boston a "mini-hub" with JFK so closeby? Are they thinking it could be an easier/more efficient transfer to a Europe-bound flight than a JFK experience would be?
Click to expand...

I'm not in the know, but I bet they'd tell you that they don't do "hubs" and they're trying to serve an underserved market. JetBlue has picked up a lot of routes that were in the process of being dropped by AA, USAir, etc.

Lots of LCC's choose to saturate a single market and then move on - in addition to B6 at Logan and JFK, see Virgin America at SFO, Allegiant at in Orlando and Las Vegas, etc. Southwest would have done the same thing at DAL if they could have.

The whole transfer-to-Europe thing is a new concept for JetBlue. Boston is uniquely positioned geographically for it and less busy than JFK, which is slot-controlled.
 
Unlike JFK where JetBlue is relegated to being a leisure-oriented airline, BOS has the ability to be dominated by targeting Boston-originating business and leisure.

They are able to make money in the lower-fare environment at BOS whereas AA, DL, US, and UA are all higher cost and have long since retreated to their primary hub markets.
 
Logan was the victim of a lot of things. Consolidation in the airline industry lead to the closure of hubs, which lead to a decrease in flights to/from Logan. Also, all legacy carriers shifted to a focus on their hubs and cut point-to-point flights which also lead to a decrease in flying from Logan. Also, the emergence of LCCs, namely JetBlue and Southwest, lead them to get killed in a lot of cities as the LCCs came in an trashed the yields. However there are several other airports in the country that suffered the same issues as Logan has.

JetBlue is a great airline, much better than any legacy for domestic flying in my opinion. They came in and took Boston by storm. They knew Boston is a large market, one of the biggest in the country, and aggressively have expanded and marketed in this area. It's been a great boon for the airport and the state. JetBlue does connect a decent amount of passengers through Logan. On a regular basis I will talk to people who are flying Seattle-Boston-Richmond, San Jose-Boston-Baltimore, etc.

If Logan had the facilities, it would make for a perfect hub to/from Europe. It has a large local market to/from Europe, geographically can reach a large number of cities via a 757 such as London, Manchester, Birmingham, Dublin, Shannon, Lisbon, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, Zurich, amongst others. Not a lot of American cities can claim that.
 
Ron Newman said:
LAX is also made up of lots of separate terminal buildings.
Click to expand...

But not more poorly connected. Yes, they use the same shuttle bus principle, but it is mroe frequent and more "hard wired" into the system in terms of dedicated stops and lanes. Same with JFK and CDG (and CDG has huge moving sidewalk infrastructure). JFK is a mess, no doubt (I am a frequent victim), but still not as Rube Goldbergian as Logan in my experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top