Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

[kmp1284]

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

I never said anything specifically about Tokyo and the 787. On the contrary, I think Tokyo will do very well for JAL and I wouldn't be surprised to see it running as a 777 in a few years. My comment was in reference to this:

If Massport had the quality management jet blue has, there would be 747's flying to numerous Asian cities. maybe it will happen anyways...

Ultimately I suspect like most members of the traveling public, the writer wouldn't know a 747 from a 7 & 7, much less a 747 from a 787.

The only cities with the sort of demand to pull that off on their own are New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco plus Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas when you consider their feed as hubs.

 

[mass88]

A convenient excuse. The market doesn't exist either.

Hardly. There most certainly is a market between Boston and Asia. The 787 is going to make the market only grow. Boston will have zero issues sustaining a year round, daily flight. By 2017, Boston should have non-stop flights to more than just Tokyo. I think we will see Seoul and Dubai along with the Tokyo flight.

Restricting cargo and passengers severely hurts the bottom line of a flight and doing a tag-on is not popular for flights.

 

[kmp1284]

I never said the market isn't there for a daily flight, or future flights to Seoul or Dubai. When Korean gets their 787's Boston may be an early contender however as their 787's will be the 787-900 variant, it may very well be too much plane for the route. Dubai will happen sooner or later.

 

[omaja]

There is good reason why NYC and WAS are the only Northeastern markets with current nonstop service to Asia: major hubs for US airlines, global financial and governmental centers, massive international populations, etc.

BOS had neither the yields nor the volume necessary to warrant nonstop 747, 777 or A340 service to an Asian hub. You can also thank our poor location relative to the easy Asian connections in Chicago, Detroit, New York and DC for our lack of nonstop service.

Thankfully, as noted, the 787 will open up many opportunities as it helps fix many of the issues on the cost side of operations.

 

[mass88]

There is good reason why NYC and WAS are the only Northeastern markets with current nonstop service to Asia: major hubs for US airlines, global financial and governmental centers, massive international populations, etc.

BOS had neither the yields nor the volume necessary to warrant nonstop 747, 777 or A340 service to an Asian hub. You can also thank our poor location relative to the easy Asian connections in Chicago, Detroit, New York and DC for our lack of nonstop service.

Thankfully, as noted, the 787 will open up many opportunities as it helps fix many of the issues on the cost side of operations.

Between the bigger Asian hubs, Tokyo, Seoul and Hong Kong, there is enough demand to fill a daily 777 and then some year round from Boston.

 

[whighlander]

There is good reason why NYC and WAS are the only Northeastern markets with current nonstop service to Asia: major hubs for US airlines, global financial and governmental centers, massive international populations, etc.

BOS had neither the yields nor the volume necessary to warrant nonstop 747, 777 or A340 service to an Asian hub. You can also thank our poor location relative to the easy Asian connections in Chicago, Detroit, New York and DC for our lack of nonstop service.

Thankfully, as noted, the 787 will open up many opportunities as it helps fix many of the issues on the cost side of operations.

Omaja -- you can thank one thing for why there are limited Asian flights from the US East Coast -- Wind

Non-stop flights from the US East Coast fly into the face of the "Jet Stream" whose speed varies sufficiently to make fully loaded 747's marginal and gives Anchorage the title of the "worlds stop-over" -- if you've ever seen it -- Anchorage looks like a truck-stop for 747's particularly the freighters

787 might just knock Anchorage back a few notches

 

[tocoto]

I never said anything specifically about Tokyo and the 787. On the contrary, I think Tokyo will do very well for JAL and I wouldn't be surprised to see it running as a 777 in a few years. My comment was in reference to this:



Ultimately I suspect like most members of the traveling public, the writer wouldn't know a 747 from a 7 & 7, much less a 747 from a 787.

The only cities with the sort of demand to pull that off on their own are New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco plus Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas when you consider their feed as hubs.

7&7

747

 

[Oakley]

I never said anything specifically about Tokyo and the 787. On the contrary, I think Tokyo will do very well for JAL and I wouldn't be surprised to see it running as a 777 in a few years. My comment was in reference to this:

Unless the runways are expanded, you will not see 777s on Asia flights; if anything, you'll see an increase in frequencies on that route, or other airlines opening competing routes.

 

[kmp1284]

The 777 was/is JAL's back-up plan for the 787. I'd say they have a better idea than you do about what Logan's limitations are.

In other news, it appears as though Hainan Airlines has been stripped of their route authority on Beijing-Boston in favor of China Eastern Airlines. Unfortunately they don't seem to have the available equipment at this time, but I'd give them better odds than Hainan ever had.



After many years of waiting for Asian service, Boston Logan International Airport may see two Asian services this year after China Eastern Airlines received CAAC approval to launch Beijing-Boston service as early as 01-Jun-2012, according to CAAC news reports, although fleet limitations make a 2012 launch optimistic. While Japan Airlines (JAL) will be the first Asian carrier to serve Boston, with a Boeing 787 service to commence on 22-Apr-2012, it is worth contemplating the speed with which China Eastern can launch its route compared to JAL. While JAL has had open access to Boston for many years, the Beijing-Boston route authority had been sitting idle since being granted to Hainan Airlines/Grand China Air in 2006. China Eastern’s approval for the route indicates Hainan has lost the route authority.

More here ....

http://www.centreforaviation.com/an...-north-asia-north-america-traffic-flows-71021

 

[whighlander]

The 777 was/is JAL's back-up plan for the 787. I'd say they have a better idea than you do about what Logan's limitations are.

In other news, it appears as though Hainan Airlines has been stripped of their route authority on Beijing-Boston in favor of China Eastern Airlines. Unfortunately they don't seem to have the available equipment at this time, but I'd give them better odds than Hainan ever had.



After many years of waiting for Asian service, Boston Logan International Airport may see two Asian services this year after China Eastern Airlines received CAAC approval to launch Beijing-Boston service as early as 01-Jun-2012, according to CAAC news reports, although fleet limitations make a 2012 launch optimistic. While Japan Airlines (JAL) will be the first Asian carrier to serve Boston, with a Boeing 787 service to commence on 22-Apr-2012, it is worth contemplating the speed with which China Eastern can launch its route compared to JAL. While JAL has had open access to Boston for many years, the Beijing-Boston route authority had been sitting idle since being granted to Hainan Airlines/Grand China Air in 2006. China Eastern’s approval for the route indicates Hainan has lost the route authority.

More here ....

http://www.centreforaviation.com/an...-north-asia-north-america-traffic-flows-71021

Kmp -- have you flow China-Eastern? -- Well I did a few years ago and it was more like Chia-Eastern

as an aside -- the name came from the fact that China Eastern bought a whole bunch of its equipment from the bankrupt Eastern Airlines -- the old 727's still had the old Eastern Airlines color schemes and might even have had some copies of the Eastern Airline magazines in the seatback pockets

It might have changed -- but when we boarded in Beijing Capital (domestic side) for a flight to Jinan (capital city of Shandong Province) they did a Southwest on Steroids boarding call
They opened the front door and the tail cone entrance and you just rushed-in to grab a seat

One positive on an approximately Bos-NYC length flight the cabin crew managed to serve a box lunch and drink to everyone in the plane

 

[Oakley]

The 777 was/is JAL's back-up plan for the 787. I'd say they have a better idea than you do about what Logan's limitations are.

It wouldn't make financial sense for an airline to fly a 777 from Boston-Asia, especially if oil prices keep going up and up. If the theory of flying 777s to and from Asia were true, then they wouldn't be waiting for the 787s.

 

[mass88]

It wouldn't make financial sense for an airline to fly a 777 from Boston-Asia, especially if oil prices keep going up and up. If the theory of flying 777s to and from Asia were true, then they wouldn't be waiting for the 787s.

Fuel aside, not being able to carry a full load of passengers and fuel hurts the financial performance of any flight.

 

[mass88]

Numbers are out for February and through the first 2 months of 2012, Logan's total passenger numbers are up over 7%.

 

[omaja]

Omaja -- you can thank one thing for why there are limited Asian flights from the US East Coast -- Wind

Non-stop flights from the US East Coast fly into the face of the "Jet Stream" whose speed varies sufficiently to make fully loaded 747's marginal and gives Anchorage the title of the "worlds stop-over" -- if you've ever seen it -- Anchorage looks like a truck-stop for 747's particularly the freighters

787 might just knock Anchorage back a few notches

Exactly, Boston historically has not had the yields or volume to overcome the operating deficiencies of current aircraft.

The 777 was/is JAL's back-up plan for the 787. I'd say they have a better idea than you do about what Logan's limitations are.

In other news, it appears as though Hainan Airlines has been stripped of their route authority on Beijing-Boston in favor of China Eastern Airlines. Unfortunately they don't seem to have the available equipment at this time, but I'd give them better odds than Hainan ever had.

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't put my money anywhere near BOS-PEK. Airlines hoard route authorities for decades and never start service. Not to mention, China Eastern's main hub is Shanghai; it has no current intercontinental service from Beijing. They would certainly look for LAX, SFO and NYC services from PEK before really considering BOS.

 

[whighlander]

Exactly, Boston historically has not had the yields or volume to overcome the operating deficiencies of current aircraft.



If I were a betting man, I wouldn't put my money anywhere near BOS-PEK. Airlines hoard route authorities for decades and never start service. Not to mention, China Eastern's main hub is Shanghai; it has no current intercontinental service from Beijing. They would certainly look for LAX, SFO and NYC services from PEK before really considering BOS.

Omnaja -- this is a nonsensical statement " Boston historically has not had the yields or volume to overcome the operating deficiencies of current aircraft. "

If in order to carry enough fuel to go the distance, the airplane is forced to carry a partial load of passengers -- Then as long as at least that many passengers are available for the flight's capacity (however how much reduced) -- additional passengers are irrelevant

The problem with Logan is not that their are not enough passengers its about the length of the runways and maximum takeoff weight.

There is plenty of demand for Asian service -- just look at how many people fly to the prime US and even Canadian Asian gateways-- there just have not been any planes optimized to the real-long hauls involved. Before the 787 all the Airbuses and Boeing 777 and 747 needed to operate so-empty to insure a full load of fuel that they can't break-even. Add about 500 feet two the longest and 2500 feet to two other runways and the 777's would already be flying to at least Seoul and Tokyo


But that is not going to happen - even adding some required end-of-runway safety zones was a major challenge due to the NIMCF (not on my clam flats) and Eelgrass
Logan adding a $65m runway fail-safe
Extension into harbor stirs multiple concerns
August 22, 2011|By David Abel, Globe Staff
http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-22/news/29915532_1_runway-safety-longest-runway-eelgrass

Logan International Airport has launched a $65 million project that will close the airport’s longest runway for at least six months and extend it hundreds of feet into Boston Harbor.

The project, which began in June, has required careful orchestration to balance environmental and neighbors’ concerns with the pounding of pile drivers and the arrival and departure of about 1,100 flights a day.

“This is a project that costs a lot of money, and we will hopefully never have to use it,’’ said Edward C. Freni, the airport’s director of aviation.

The undertaking, paid for mostly by federal grants and scheduled to be completed in 2013, will extend the existing runway safety area 400 feet on a hulking pier upheld by more than 300 concrete pylons that are being bored into the seabed.

 

[mass88]

Exactly, Boston historically has not had the yields or volume to overcome the operating deficiencies of current aircraft.



If I were a betting man, I wouldn't put my money anywhere near BOS-PEK. Airlines hoard route authorities for decades and never start service. Not to mention, China Eastern's main hub is Shanghai; it has no current intercontinental service from Beijing. They would certainly look for LAX, SFO and NYC services from PEK before really considering BOS.

I agree that carriers will hoard authorities. But you also need to remember that LAX, SFO and EWR/JFK already offer a wide range of service to Asia. All 4 airports have multiple Asian carriers and domestic carriers that offer several daily flight to/from Asia.

I think if JAL does well on NRT-BOS, by 2015 there will another Asian carrier. China Eastern may think Boston will be a good choice due to lack of competition. The Boston-Asia market is only going to see stimulation with the introduction of non-stop service. People who would normally fly say Providence-Chicago-Tokyo will now opt to make the extra drive up toe Boston for the non-stop that in the end, will save them several hours of total travel.

 

[omaja]

Omnaja -- this is a nonsensical statement " Boston historically has not had the yields or volume to overcome the operating deficiencies of current aircraft. "

If in order to carry enough fuel to go the distance, the airplane is forced to carry a partial load of passengers -- Then as long as at least that many passengers are available for the flight's capacity (however how much reduced) -- additional passengers are irrelevant

The problem with Logan is not that their are not enough passengers its about the length of the runways and maximum takeoff weight.

There is plenty of demand for Asian service -- just look at how many people fly to the prime US and even Canadian Asian gateways-- there just have not been any planes optimized to the real-long hauls involved. Before the 787 all the Airbuses and Boeing 777 and 747 needed to operate so-empty to insure a full load of fuel that they can't break-even. Add about 500 feet two the longest and 2500 feet to two other runways and the 777's would already be flying to at least Seoul and Tokyo

Whighlander, the history of the BOS-Asia market doesn't totally support your argument about the runways. Korean didn't operate a triangular flight SEL-BOS-IAD-SEL solely because of the runways; the markets in both DC and Boston were thin and had to be combined to work. Unfortunately as with most triangular flights, the limited service and the stop in one direction meant that most traffic was still flowing over US hubs. Also, American had planned non-stop BOS-NRT in 1999 but nixed it due to the tech bust and evaporation of the market.

If there's a will, there's a way. BOS hasn't have the premium demand to prop up the aircraft operational limitations. Combining that with the relatively smaller local markets and easy connections over US hubs, and its no wonder BOS has been without Asian service for quite some time.

Obviously Boston has grown and recovered since 2000 and the 787 is now here, all of that is what is driving JAL's BOS-NRT service. There's no one particular piece; it is a combination of several factors.

I think if JAL does well on NRT-BOS, by 2015 there will another Asian carrier. China Eastern may think Boston will be a good choice due to lack of competition. The Boston-Asia market is only going to see stimulation with the introduction of non-stop service. People who would normally fly say Providence-Chicago-Tokyo will now opt to make the extra drive up toe Boston for the non-stop that in the end, will save them several hours of total travel.

I agree that we'll likely see more Asian service--certainly Korean, ANA and a Chinese carrier are viable candidates. But in terms of China Eastern, keep in mind that they only serve NYC, Honolulu and Los Angeles in the US, and all of those are only served via Shanghai. They won't add BOS-PEK as a first, second or even third destination from PEK until those big three are covered.

 

[whighlander]

Whighlander, the history of the BOS-Asia market doesn't totally support your argument about the runways. Korean didn't operate a triangular flight SEL-BOS-IAD-SEL solely because of the runways; the markets in both DC and Boston were thin and had to be combined to work. Unfortunately as with most triangular flights, the limited service and the stop in one direction meant that most traffic was still flowing over US hubs. Also, American had planned non-stop BOS-NRT in 1999 but nixed it due to the tech bust and evaporation of the market.

If there's a will, there's a way. BOS hasn't have the premium demand to prop up the aircraft operational limitations. Combining that with the relatively smaller local markets and easy connections over US hubs, and its no wonder BOS has been without Asian service for quite some time.

Obviously Boston has grown and recovered since 2000 and the 787 is now here, all of that is what is driving JAL's BOS-NRT service. There's no one particular piece; it is a combination of several factors.



I agree that we'll likely see more Asian service--certainly Korean, ANA and a Chinese carrier are viable candidates. But in terms of China Eastern, keep in mind that they only serve NYC, Honolulu and Los Angeles in the US, and all of those are only served via Shanghai. They won't add BOS-PEK as a first, second or even third destination from PEK until those big three are covered.

Ohmja -- I'v flown JFK to Seoul on Asiana -- depending on winds the big fully loaded 747 has to stop in Anchorage heading west. Heading east almost never. JFK's runways are long enough to let the 747 have its max takeoff weight under almost all wind and temperature conditions. Not-so with Logan -- you need ideal wind conditions and cold temperatures to be able to fill-up the plane and get the required speed by the time you have to commit -- its dicey.

B787 is optimized for these kind of conditions -- the plane itself is light, it aerodynamics are better and its sized for point to point long-distance service.

Right-now people heading to Asia from around here take a detour to some other airport - sometimes as far away as Dallas and then have an additional pleasure of waiting. Chicago on United to Japan or Hong Kong is probably the easiest connection -- but why connect on this end when you might have to connect on the other side anyway.

 

[omaja]

I am not arguing that runway length hasn't played a role in limiting BOS-Asia, I am saying it is not the only factor. I don't understand why you want to belabor the point. The 787 is the perfect aircraft for long, thin and runway-restricted routes just like BOS-NRT.

 

[whighlander]

I am not arguing that runway length hasn't played a role in limiting BOS-Asia, I am saying it is not the only factor. I don't understand why you want to belabor the point. The 787 is the perfect aircraft for long, thin and runway-restricted routes just like BOS-NRT.

Omaja -- I call your attention to my post under

Originally Posted by datadyne007
The question then becomes why does MassPort have all this money to throw away when the T is strapped for pennies?

Data -- Massport makes money -- it receives no direct funds from the Commonwealth.

my reply included this tidbit from the FY20111 CAFR


From the FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR):
http://www.massport.com/massport/Doc...Y2011_CAFR.pdf

9) Boston is one of the top-ranking destinations for overseas visitors to the United States ranking 9th in the nation in 2009, just ahead of Chicago. Also, Boston is home to two major
convention centers - the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center (the “Hynes Center”) and the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center (“BCEC”). Boston has been named one of North America’s top 10 convention destinations by Tradeshow Week magazine every year since 2006.
10) Logan Airport ranked 10th among U.S. airports in terms of domestic O&D passengers in the 12 months ended June 30, 2010, ahead of major connecting hub airports, such as Dallas/Fort Worth, John F. Kennedy and Newark Liberty International.
11) In terms of international O&D passengers, Logan Airport ranked 7th, ahead of airports such as Orlando International, Bush Intercontinental and Washington-Dulles International:
a) Nearly 400,000 passengers flew between Asia and Boston in 2010

400,000/365 =about 2.5 747's per day if my head math is still any good