Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

A few thoughts I believe to be true...


Boston's 10,000 foot runways are long enough to fly 80% seating capacities (maybe more) in planes other than the 787 to Asia. The problem is it's a long thin route and is hard to get enough passengers for the big planes needed due to Boston's geographical location.

The distance from Boston to Tokyo is about the same as New York to Tokyo. The difference in flight time going through New York or Boston is minimal, it's that New your has longer runways and better connections.

Just for comparison, the longest runway in Atlanta is 11900 feet

In a northwest wind the longest runway at JFK is 11400 feet.

Boston already is a big transfer point to Europe, every time I go I seem to sit next to someone from Indianapolis or Pittsburgh

Boston really needs a bigger terminal E and an air side (secure) path from terminal to terminal by walking or bus

Jet Blue has code shares with Lufthansa, Aer Lingus and AA for domestic transfers to Europe and vice versa.

The new 5000' runway can land a 737 not just commuter (prop) planes.

NIMBYs and noise critics are the biggest limitation to Logan even though modern jets are no where near as noisy as jets from only 15 years ago.
 
Pan Am, the real Pan Am, tried making Boston a mini-hub for one or two years, and flew daily to five or six European cities, with, IIRC, connecting flights to/from East Coast cities.

JFK is slot-controlled. One's ability to expand can be constrained, even severely constrained.
 
As far as Boston-Asia is concerned, it is a long and thin market if you are talking about individual cities, but as a whole Boston-Asia is a decent sized market. Once non-stop service is introduced, you will see a large amount of stimulation that a non-stop usually brings. Also, people who want to go to Japan who would normally fly out of Manchester, or Providence would opt for the non-stop out of Boston to save a ton of time. If they know they can get a non-stop versus connecting via JFK, Newark, Detroit, etc. they will make the drive to Boston. `

There are enough passengers to fill a multiple daily 777-300s to/from Asia out of Boston. As you have mentioned, the runway length is a major issue and why the 787 is perfect for the Boston market. JAL would not send their brand new 787s on any old route.
 
Why don't they make Logan an airport like Osaka and have it be out in the ocean on a man made island?

Mass -- Logan is an island -- or actually several

Of the about 4 square miles of Logan 3/4 is fill of either harbor or mud flats.

On June 13, 1923 Boston's first aircraft touched down on a 1,500 foot cinder runway built by the U.S. Army on 189 acres of tidal flats. Boston Airport or Jeffery Field officially opened on September 8, 1923.

In 1929, the City of Boston signed a 20-year lease with the state and put the Parks Department in charge of Boston Airport -- expansion began: an administration building; longer runways; paved access roads; landscaping; Two hundred more acres of land was reclaimed from Boston Harbor.

In 1939, American Airlines begins daily scheduled service between Boston and New York and the Massachusetts State Legislature created the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) "to foster air commerce, encourage the establishment of airports and recommend related legislation."

One week before Pearl Harbor in 1941, Massachusetts resumed control and assigned the Boston Airport to the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. Extensively used during WWII, 1800 more acres are reclaimed from the harbor for: additional runways; apron areas; and three new hangars.

On June 12, 1943 the Massachusetts State Legislature: issued $4.2 million in bonds for the funding of a new road; and renamed Boston Airport rename the airport General Edward Lawrence Logan Airport after a Spanish-American War Hero.

In 1944, Northeast Airlines (today's Delta) began flying to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Canada; American Airlines flew daily to New York.

In 1949 the first modern terminal was completed -- Horseshoe-shaped Boutwell Terminal Building (Today's Terminals B and C are on its footprint) -- 471,000 passengers fly.

In 1952, a loop access roadway is completed and non-stop transcontinental service to LA begins

In 1955, the 'Old Control Tower" is completed, Logan now has 45 gates and 4 runways

In 1959, Logan begins daily jet service: Pan Am to London and American to LA
Airport now has four runways and an expanded terminal with 45 gates.
Jet operations begin with Pan American Airways daily 707 service to Europe. Two months later, American Airlines begins daily flights from Boston to Los Angeles.

In 1956, the Massachusetts State Legislature creates the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) to: operate Logan; the Mystic River Bridge (Tobin Bridge), Hanscom Field in Bedford; and the Port of Boston. Massport is given the ability to issue revenue bonds and charge user fees -- intended to be without cost to the taxpayer and without pledge of Massachusetts State Credit -- becomes operational on February 17, 1959.

In 1961, Massport begins a $23 million Logan construction program: a $5.9 million International Terminal (the Current Terminal C is on the footprint); additional landfill added to extend runway 15R/33L; the Central Garage, the Terminal Roadway and the New Taxiway

In 1973, Massport begins $105 million in infrastructure projects: a new 22-story, 285 foot control tower (at the time world's tallest it is the in the world); The Volpe International Terminal (now renovated and expanded into Terminal E); South Terminal (now renovated and expanded into Terminal B)

In 1974, the final major filling project is completed with 234 acres reclaimed from Bird Island Flats and the harbor for: cargo warehouses; and eventually for the Logan Office Center; Hyatt Hotel; Amelia Earhart General Aviation Terminal; and ultimately for Runway 14-32

By 1980, there are more than 15 million people using Logan

By 1994 with nearly 25 million passengers the $4.4 billion Logan Modernization Project begins; "to increase efficiency without expanding the airport's borders or compromising on environmental benefits for its neighbors." The program includes: $146 million to integrate Logan’s new baggage screening system within the existing system to avoid impacts on passengers and terminal space (Logan is Airport first major airport to have a 100% inline baggage screening plan approved by the TSA); modifications and enhancemens to every terminal and roadway including:
• An award-winning International Gateway Arrivals Hall
• New Airport MBTA Station
• Connections to the Central Parking Garage from all terminals via enclosed walkways with moving sidewalks
• 2005 -- State-of-the-art and environmentally friendly Terminal A (LEED certified by the U.S. Green Building Council) -- ironically replaced the Eastern Airlines Terminal designed by Yamasaki
• New two-tiered roadway system that clearly separates arrivals (lower level) from departures (upper level) to simplify the airport driving experience.

and Logan Airside program, which involves various alternatives for reducing current and projected levels of aircraft delay and enhancing operational safety at Logan: runway 14-32 and Central Taxiway

As the wiki article says:

The airport has expanded over the years, including the 1940s addition of 1,800 acres (730 ha) of landfill in Boston Harbor and the incorporation of the former Governors, Noddle's and Apple Islands. In 1943 the state renamed the airport as General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport after a Spanish-American War officer from South Boston.

Note for those of you curious -- the West Concourse of Terminal E now has been assigned a project number although it is as yet unfunded: L0338 TERMINAL E WEST CONCOURSE -- $108 M
Fy13 fy14 Fy 15 Fy16 Total (1000s)
$17,293 $20,129 $20,129 $50,449 $108,000

Ref date information from wiki and history of Logan on Massport website
 
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)?

Tomb -- its much easier to get from any terminal at Logan to any other than it is at DFW in Dallas
Between the various moving walkways to the garage there are several ways -- some fully enclosed to connect to any terminal

The only thing that you can not yet do is connect post security -- this is being addressed in-part by new construction
 
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?

CZ -- for Tomb -- London Heathrow is great as long as you stay within Term 4 or Term 5 -- if you have to get to Term 1 - you need to take a long bus ride

Jet Blue's logic is that Logan is much more efficient for their operations all in one Terminal with lots of expansion potential as soon as United moves to Terminal B and Logan also offers a lower total cost of operations -- as is usual with all the graft and corruption in NYC JFK costs a lot more than Logan
 
Jet Blue has code shares with Lufthansa, Aer Lingus and AA for domestic transfers to Europe and vice versa.

While B6 has codeshares in place with Lufthansa and Aer Lingus, it has an industry-standard interline agreement with AA. No codesharing in place yet.

There are enough passengers to fill a multiple daily 777-300s to/from Asia out of Boston. As you have mentioned, the runway length is a major issue and why the 787 is perfect for the Boston market. JAL would not send their brand new 787s on any old route.

Runway length is only part of the issue -- the other being that BOS isn't an incredibly high-yielding and/or high-volume market to Asia. The reason why JAL is sending its 787s to BOS is that the economics of the plane allow for the lighter demand to be carried at a more favorable break-even load factor.

787s to hubs in Tokyo, Seoul and perhaps Beijing or Shanghai, is probably all the service that BOS will be able to sustain for awhile, similar to the level of European service seen by our West Coast cousins LAX and SFO.
 
^ That seems about right. Other than those Asian hubs, Boston just needs some nonstops to the Gulf as a gateway to the ME and India...and maybe something to Brazil?
 
While B6 has codeshares in place with Lufthansa and Aer Lingus, it has an industry-standard interline agreement with AA. No codesharing in place yet.



Runway length is only part of the issue -- the other being that BOS isn't an incredibly high-yielding and/or high-volume market to Asia. The reason why JAL is sending its 787s to BOS is that the economics of the plane allow for the lighter demand to be carried at a more favorable break-even load factor.

787s to hubs in Tokyo, Seoul and perhaps Beijing or Shanghai, is probably all the service that BOS will be able to sustain for awhile, similar to the level of European service seen by our West Coast cousins LAX and SFO.

Om -- B 787 is ideal because of its operational efficiency -- today's airlines need full planes to make any money. The Bigger long haul planes can't take off if they are full from all but the longest Logan runway with ideal headwind. When they start limiting the seating and the cargo -- they go broke. There used to be an Asian flight and it died as fuel costs rose.

In addition to Tokyo -- 787 can probably make money flying from BOS to:
India -- growing corporate business and lots of Indian origin technopreneurs
China -- lots of corporate business
Dubai
possibly Singapore
someplace in South America
 
While B6 has codeshares in place with Lufthansa and Aer Lingus, it has an industry-standard interline agreement with AA. No codesharing in place yet.

Runway length is only part of the issue -- the other being that BOS isn't an incredibly high-yielding and/or high-volume market to Asia. The reason why JAL is sending its 787s to BOS is that the economics of the plane allow for the lighter demand to be carried at a more favorable break-even load factor.

787s to hubs in Tokyo, Seoul and perhaps Beijing or Shanghai, is probably all the service that BOS will be able to sustain for awhile, similar to the level of European service seen by our West Coast cousins LAX and SFO.

Talking about the financial aspect is a great thing to bring up and one I omitted. The 787 will make a lot of route viable from Boston in the future. Also to note, both SF and LA are large markets to Europe. Both are in the top 10 for U.S. markets. Both also see good yields. I think Seattle would be a better city to compare Boston's Asia service to. Their service to Europe is much smaller.

If Logan had the runway, an airline could easily run daily 777 service from Boston to one of the big hubs over there. The market is there and the average airfares are too.

It will be interesting to see how things take off for Logan-Asia. I think JAL will be very successful and the overall market will experience some nice stimulation. I think Korean Air to Seoul (they are getting the 787) will be the next market down the road. There is also a lot of talk about Emirates starting up Boston-Dubai flights
 
Om -- B 787 is ideal because of its operational efficiency -- today's airlines need full planes to make any money. The Bigger long haul planes can't take off if they are full from all but the longest Logan runway with ideal headwind. When they start limiting the seating and the cargo -- they go broke. There used to be an Asian flight and it died as fuel costs rose.

In addition to Tokyo -- 787 can probably make money flying from BOS to:
India -- growing corporate business and lots of Indian origin technopreneurs
China -- lots of corporate business
Dubai
possibly Singapore
someplace in South America

Singapore would be a VERY long flight from Boston. I believe Newark-Singapore is the longest non-stop flight flown. Boston-Brazil would have zero issues filling a plane up year round. It's all low yield traffic though so no airline with their current fleets will give it a shot.

Dubai will happen. At the rate Emirates is expanding it;s only a matter of time before they fly to Boston. They already fly to New York, Washington, D.C. (just announced), Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. The only holes in the U.S. would be Boston, Chicago and to a lesser extent Atlanta.

I also would not be surprised it Qatar opened up a Doha-Boston flight with their 787s once they get them.
 
Singapore air flies an A340 500 from Newark. Its max takeoff run at max weight is 10010 feet. Newark has one runway around 11,000 feet unusable in NW wind. Cost of a ticket, around $7000. My understanding is the the A340 500 has similar specs to the 747 400. It seems airlines could fly big planes to Asia if the clientele were available - enough passengers, high paying. Once the flight starts to Tokyo, I hope it opens more routes from Boston, we'll have to wait and see.
 
Talking about the financial aspect is a great thing to bring up and one I omitted. The 787 will make a lot of route viable from Boston in the future. Also to note, both SF and LA are large markets to Europe. Both are in the top 10 for U.S. markets. Both also see good yields. I think Seattle would be a better city to compare Boston's Asia service to. Their service to Europe is much smaller.

Certainly LA and SF are large markets to Europe, but for obvious reasons they are much larger to Asia. Similarly, Boston will always be stronger to Europe but will hopefully maintain key routes to major Asian hubs in the future -- just as LA and SF do to European hubs.

The same will hold true for cities up and down both coasts -- East Coast is stronger to Europe and West Coast to Asia. I guess I was just trying to state the obvious that we can't expect to see much happen BOS-Asia outside of the major hubs in Japan, Korea, and possibly China.

BOS-Dubai/Abu Dhabi/Doha/Istanbul would all be excellent options for the Middle East as well. Outside of that, BOS-India/Singapore/etc are all pretty long shots.
 
CZ -- for Tomb -- London Heathrow is great as long as you stay within Term 4 or Term 5 -- if you have to get to Term 1 - you need to take a long bus ride

whighlander--Heathrow is a nightmare--hands down the worst airport (I know of) in terms of connectivity (Narita was that way before its makeover). But it is also vast--Logan doesn't have the issue of scale LHR does.

I know you can get from one terminal to another at Logan; my only point was that it is obviously cobbled together as an afterthought in response to people who think Logan is world-class. It has its good qualities (certainly terminals A and E--the ones I am in most frequently--are okay, and the approach is nice, proximity to the city can't be beat, access to the T stop and SilverLine system are not terrific but better than a poke with a sharp stick) but it's not going to make many lists of nice airports. It is a kind of a mini-JFK.
 
what drives the Emirates expansion to Seattle before Boston or Chicago. I would think both are bigger markets to the Middle East. Anyone know?
 
CZ -- for Tomb -- London Heathrow is great as long as you stay within Term 4 or Term 5 -- if you have to get to Term 1 - you need to take a long bus ride

That bus ride at Heathrow is at least all air side - passengers still have to go through a security screening between terminals, but there's no need to exit the airport into the check-in hall / general ground transport area.

I don't get all the hate for Heathrow, incidentally. Hands down one of my favorite airports in the world, but maybe that's just because I like the fact that it feels sort of like the busy nerve center of the world and that takes away from its many annoyances. I've been to Beijing Capital and the architecture is out of this world but the place feels extremely provincial by comparison. Can't speak for Dubai though...

Jet Blue's logic is that Logan is much more efficient for their operations all in one Terminal

JetBlue only operates from T5 in New York, which they own and is one of the best airline terminals in the country, so I don't exactly get what you're saying here.
 
what drives the Emirates expansion to Seattle before Boston or Chicago. I would think both are bigger markets to the Middle East. Anyone know?

My guess would be to capitalize on all of the tech traffic. Lufthansa carries a good amount of Seattle-Frankfurt-India traffic. However, Seattle has already seen a downgrade in the aircraft. It was initially supposed to be a 773 and was cut down to a 777LR.
 
That bus ride at Heathrow is at least all air side - passengers still have to go through a security screening between terminals, but there's no need to exit the airport into the check-in hall / general ground transport area.

I don't get all the hate for Heathrow, incidentally. Hands down one of my favorite airports in the world, but maybe that's just because I like the fact that it feels sort of like the busy nerve center of the world and that takes away from its many annoyances. I've been to Beijing Capital and the architecture is out of this world but the place feels extremely provincial by comparison. Can't speak for Dubai though...

JetBlue only operates from T5 in New York, which they own and is one of the best airline terminals in the country, so I don't exactly get what you're saying here.

Dubai is amazing -- "Fly Buy Dubai"
try Singapore -- another amazing tropical airport with full size palms inside
Iceland is also quite amazing -- but somewhat limited in airlines

I used to have the same sentiments about Heathrow -- pre-Terminal 5 days. And that was true even if you had to take a bus -- not airside -- to get to LOT or the other minor European Carriers

However in the past 3 or 4 years Frankfurt (FRAport) and Lufthansa has replaced Heathrow and BA as my preferred Atlantic Network

Nobody is denying that Jet Blue in its own terminal at JFK is going to be efficient -- but most connecting flights into the New York metro don't go into JFK they go into Laguardia or Newark -- neither of which can be quickly accessed to/from JFK Nor can Jet Blue exercise much pull with the NY Port Authority

Logan by comparison provides Jet Blue with a good-sized native base and easy connections within the airport from all the other major carriers -- despite what Tomb says about connections

Finally in about 2 or 3 years Jet Blue will have Term C essentially to itself and Cape Air with the post-security connector to Terminal E
 
what drives the Emirates expansion to Seattle before Boston or Chicago. I would think both are bigger markets to the Middle East. Anyone know?

Chicago already has nonstop service to Abu Dhabi, Amman, and Istanbul, in addition to connecting service via European hubs. Similarly, Boston has service to AMS/CDG/FRA/LHR/MUC/ZRH with easy connections to the Middle East, India, etc.

As you can see, it is usually faster for both BOS and CHI traffic to flow over Europe to get to India, or avoid some serious backtracking to destinations east of Dubai.

So my guess why Seattle wins before Boston or Chicago: less competition and better transit efficiencies for SEA-Middle East/India traffic flows.
 
Aren't flights over the pole more expensive/difficult? I had the sense not many of those were run anymore.
 

Back
Top