Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

Plently of polar-oriented routes operate today:
ATL-NRT
DTW-HKG/ICN/NRT/PEK/PVG
EWR-BOM/HKG/NRT/PEK/PVG/SIN
JFK-HKG/ICN/NRT/SIN
ORD-HKG/ICN/NRT/PEK/PVG

I don't think a polar flight is inherently more expensive/difficult. The problem with some (namely EWR-SIN) is that they are ultra-long haul so there needs to be a sizeable premium demand in order to cover costs of overflying everything. SEA-DXB would be at least 1,500 miles shorter than EWR-SIN, though.
 
Apparently, they haven't figured out basic traffic flows at Logan Airport. When you have all the taxi lanes merging into one, and the first taxi in line is slow to load with luggage, all the other taxis must wait behind it to move.

logan.jpg
 
And, here's a novel way for a taxi driver to get around the city's requirement that all cabs must have credit card machines: just tear it out.

parking.jpg
 
Ah yes, the Toyota Camry taxi, what an asinine concept. I'm not even that tall and I can't sit comfortably for more than ten minutes. Fuck being green, I'll take a Crown Vic thank you.
 
omaja said:
Plently of polar-oriented routes operate today

[...]

I don't think a polar flight is inherently more expensive/difficult.
Click to expand...

Flights from the West Coast to Moscow (LA, SFO, SEA) also go over the North Pole. I had never heard anything about them being particularly costly/unprofitable.

The LA-Moscow flight is 11 hrs, 45 mins, which is ~2 hours longer than the NY-Moscow flight. 2 hours, that is, as opposed to the 6.5 hours it takes to fly from NY to LA. Gotta love the Pole!
 
Dont pole flights have so extra fees involved? Like you fly over some territory (russia?) you wouldnt under normal circumstances, and russia has enormous fees.

Obviously, if the flight is to moscow, thats not an issue.
 
^ I would assume the issue might be some extra safety precautions of some kind. There can't be many airports to divert to up there in case of emergency...
 
czsz said:
^ I would assume the issue might be some extra safety precautions of some kind. There can't be many airports to divert to up there in case of emergency...
Click to expand...

Certain planes have special certification, ETOPS for example, given they fly routes that require them to be somewhat long distances from a land-able airport.
 
JohnAKeith said:
And, here's a novel way for a taxi driver to get around the city's requirement that all cabs must have credit card machines: just tear it out.

parking.jpg
Click to expand...
That cab is operating without required equipment and is not considered fit for operation. A call to the BPD with the medallion number would get it pulled off the road very quickly.
 
JetBlue, Japan Airlines to ‘codeshare’ Tokyo-to-Boston flight
E-mail| Print | Comments (0) 03/26/2012 4:02 PM

0
0

ShareThisNew
E-mail
By Katie Johnston, Globe Staff

JetBlue Airways and Japan Airlines are planning to enhance their interline agreement to a one-way codeshare, starting with Japan Airlines’ new Boston-Tokyo flight, launching April 22.

The change means a flight booked on Japan Airlines from Tokyo to Buffalo, for instance, would use Japan Airlines flight codes for both legs of the trip, even though the second flight from Boston to Buffalo would be operated by JetBlue.

The codeshare still must be approved by the Department of Transportation.

Under the airlines’ current interline agreement, the trip is booked the same way but appears as flights on two separate airlines. JetBlue has a similar codeshare agreement with South African Airways and Lufthansa.

Katie Johnston can be reached at kjohnston@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/busine...ston-flight/KS2d2ilDu7KPhawxYBMghM/index.html

So, when can i use my JetBlue Points to go to Tokyo or Germany? Are there plans to do that at all?
 
If Massport had the quality management jet blue has, there would be 747's flying to numerous Asian cities. maybe it will happen anyways...
 
Tombstoner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tomb -- for some reason pilots and passengers seem to disagree with you

Logan regularly ranks quite high in terms of quality of service, efficiency, reliability -- Of course its not Heathrow -- and after this years upgrades for the Olympics there aren't more than 1 or two others of the scale of Heathrow (especially internationally)

Nonetheless -- after the most recently announced improvements (ConRAC, post-security interconnects, re-aligned major airlines in the terminals) are completed in 2014 ?...? -- there will be few features that one would want at a major international gateway that Logan will not provide. Couple the airports world-class features with its location in the midst of the urban core, and add the fact that I can walk out the front door of my house in Lexington and be at a boarding gate in 1 hour optimally and 2 hours easily -- that's fairly special
 
czsz said:
Aren't flights over the pole more expensive/difficult? I had the sense not many of those were run anymore.
Click to expand...

CZ -- No -- au-contraire -- flights over the pole are done not for the scenery but because they minimized the distance -- so-called Great Circle Route -- They used to be hard to arrange because of some of the countries who were en-route -- i.e. Russia and China

As a bit of a "cold warrior" I was somewhat amazed that when I went to Singapore in 2010 via Hong Kong that we approached HK from over the mainland China having come over the top through Siberia

Now the only ideal routing that's limited by over-flight access restrictions involves Iran or North Korea although, the air traffic control over Siberia is still similar to what you get over the ocean -- i.e. very very little help for the pilot and somewhat limited flight paths

The next iteration of improved aircraft navigation via a fully GPS and satellite transponder tracking system is on the drawing boards and when implemented in 5 to 10 years -- all long distance flights will be able to optimize routing to minimize distance, minimize weather effects and will fit well with a lot of B787' going point to point with fewer big hub to hub flights
 
whighlander said:
Tomb -- for some reason pilots and passengers seem to disagree with you
Click to expand...

Hm. Heathrow, JFK, CDG...all these are arguably very "popular" airports using the metric of passenger boarding, yet all of them are widely despised by most international travelers (I don't hear a kind word about any of them, though I'm sure you can find people that love them).

I am not attempting to "prove" that Logan is a bad airport. The whole matter is subjective and--as I've said--it certainly has its strengths. Conversely, I have to say that some cities I consider hellholes (e.g., Atlanta) have really figured out how to design an airport and connect it seamlessly to the city via public and private transportation. But please feel free to love Logan (and LHR, JFK and CDG for that matter)--I just think Boston deserves better.
 
Tombstoner said:
Hm. Heathrow, JFK, CDG...all these are arguably very "popular" airports using the metric of passenger boarding, yet all of them are widely despised by most international travelers (I don't hear a kind word about any of them, though I'm sure you can find people that love them).

I am not attempting to "prove" that Logan is a bad airport. The whole matter is subjective and--as I've said--it certainly has its strengths. Conversely, I have to say that some cities I consider hellholes (e.g., Atlanta) have really figured out how to design an airport and connect it seamlessly to the city via public and private transportation. But please feel free to love Logan (and LHR, JFK and CDG for that matter)--I just think Boston deserves better.
Click to expand...

Tomb -- your last phrase is on target -- and over time it is happening -- Logan has two major handicaps:
1) Hemmed in by water which is no-longer fillable
2) hemmed in by city neighborhoods, NIMBYs and NIMBY-supporting politicians

and a less major handicap, which on-paper at least should have been ameliorated by the merger of the various transportation entities into the Mass Dept. of Transportation, the lack of coordination and cooperation among the various relevant entities -- this should in the future reduce the friction between the operators or bridges, tunnels and transit which in the past were all separate entities

Ultimately, there still remains the separation between the city and Massport -- most of the other major airports are owned and operated by their cities or metropolitan areas -- Boston's airport is owned and operated by Massport a quasi-independent authority in-turn controlled by the Governor and the State Legislature. Note -- my long-time proposal for a "new-MDC" which would own and operate all of the M alphabet soup of authorities would solve this problem.
 
tocoto said:
If Massport had the quality management jet blue has, there would be 747's flying to numerous Asian cities. maybe it will happen anyways...
Click to expand...

A fully loaded 747 (passengers, fuel and cargo) cannot be done on such a long flight from Logan due to the runway situation. A carrier would have to cutback on the number of seats and the amount of cargo the flight could carry and that would hurt the financial performance. Look at Korean Air. They had to have a tag on to D.C. for the Seoul - Boston flights. That hurts things big time.


Massport is not nearly as bad as other state agencies.
 
kmp1284 said:
A convenient excuse. The market doesn't exist either.
Click to expand...

kmp - clearly JAL thinks a market exists -- they are using BOS to NRT as the launch run for the B787 in the US

Now the 787 has several advantages compared to the old 747's and even the re-engined 777 -- much more efficient in terms of operations and lower maintenance costs -- so given the sometimes short runways depending on winds) at Logan - the 787 can make money even given the high fuel costs -- a partially loaded 747 or 777 can't make the cut economically on the longest hauls

Flying to Europe of course from Logan is very different as the amount of fuel needed is much less and so a 747, 777, AB340-600 can be full of people and cargo and just carry enough fuel to make the 3000+ miles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top