Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion
- Thread starter lexicon506
- Start date
Yea, I saw the leaked slides by Turkish.
It's crazy how much expansion Emirates has had over the last 5 years. Boston has been mentioned as one of their next North American stations, along with Chicago and Miami, for quite some time.
I don't know that I've seen a particular date thrown around for Emirates, just that it is likely inevitable for 2013?
Turkish, though, is notorious for throwing around wishlists of potential future destinations. I believe they announced their intention back in 2011 to start BOS and it never happened, so not sure I'd put a whole lot of weight in a presentation until they announce a schedule.
That said, Turkish and Emirates did sign interline agreements with JetBlue last year that will prove very helpful for them as they can sell onward domestic connections via JetBlue's large and growing BOS network.
If Emirates started Dubai flights, would they be able to use their signature A380 fleet to access Logan? I know that gate and runway requirements are different for those planes. Not sure if there's a sufficient market for that kind of traffic, but then again, when Airbus first came out with the A380 I thought it would be a dismal failure. It has since proven itself to have utility, so I suppose the traffic might warrant them if Jetblue fed the rest of the country to those flights. Just wondering if anybody more knowledgeable would be able to answer whether those planes are technically able to land at Logan.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,704
The A380 has been a win for airlines and customers, but for Airbus it is a net-loser (like the Concorde and L1011s to think of historical great planes that were financial disasters to produce). It will be a long time before it pays back its development costs.
Emirates has A350s on order and won't be a 787 airline, and so far Turkish hasn't ordered the 787 either.
I can't answer the physical, but the financial answer is "No A380s".
I don't see how Boston can support an A380 financially to any market, and as evidence I offer how few 747s we currently see. The A380 gets introduced when one or more 744s prove too small (usually at a slot-constrained airport like Heathrow or Narita). We'd be seeing more than just summertime 747s to LHR/FRA/CDG if Boston were ready for A380s. As it is, BA/LH/AF have historically an additional 777/330/767-sized aircraft into a secondary connecting bank if they find they are maxing out their 747 service. (That secondary bank is either at a secondary time at their "main" hub, or at a "main" time at a secondary hub).
This is even truer now that BA needs to feed a scondary hub in Madrid, LH is running secondary hubs at Munich, Vienna, and Zurich, and Air France needs to keep hubs at Paris, AMS, and Rome all busy--and all of those hubs have more than one bank per day that can be fed. So the problem for any A380 operator is that there are competitors who would want to soak up an "extra" Boston travelers via their secondary hubs. From Boston, it is a 787 kinda world.
I think the safest assumption would be that Emirates would pioneer the route with the smallest aircraft they have with sufficient range. In the immortal words of Bob Crandall, "nobody ever went bankrupt flying aircraft that were too small." (as he sold off AA early 747s in favor of DC10s)
So I think (for Emirates) you'd be looking at either a B777 or a A330/340.
Last edited:
Logan does not have the infrastructure in place to handle scheduled A380 service at this time and I don't believe they have plans to make the expensive upgrades needed. BOS-DXB will probably be on a 777LR - they don't really use A330/A340 for anything other than flights more 'regional' in nature - DXB-Europe/Africa/India.
BOS would probably only be able to feasibly support A380 service to London, Paris and Frankfurt. While the London market generally tends to favor frequency, this summer British Airways and American Airlines will consolidate their current 6x daily schedule (3x BA 747/777 + 3x AA 757) down to 4x daily (3x BA 747 and 1x BA 777). I could certainly see BA sending the A380 to BOS if they ever need to free up slots at LHR. The same can be said of Air France and Lufthansa at CDG and FRA where frequency is less important.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,704
What I've read suggests that the A380 will come to JFK and IAD (and could come to BOS, if it were physically ready) more for rotational/utilization reasons--something to do because the *real* A380 markets (HKG, PEK, NRT) don't quite have good 24hr rotations, so you need a "long" asian route balanced by a "short" route somewhere. If you're LH, that's EWR or IAD (and your Star-Alliance feed to fill it). If you're BA or AF, that's JFK for local and partner (AA/DL) feed.
But getting A380s for rotational reason is a pretty lousy reason for Massport to spend the money to accommodate them. JetBlue and AA and DL have "interesting" amounts of feed into BOS, but nothing compared to what's available at EWR, IAD and JFK.
And again, if you're AF and your CDG 744 is full, adding/upgaging flights to CDG and AMS and Rome works just as well (especially in summer).
Fare report and fare measure are two pretty good resources. They don't give full lists, but you can look at each market and see how many daily passengers and which airline carries the most amount of traffic.
Its going to be COPA starting BOS-Panama City this summer. Someone on airliners.net caught this being entered into the Amadeus Reservation System. We may hear an announcement this week.
CM 718 D PTY BOS 1146 1816 0 10JUL13 02NOV13 73G 5:30
CM 719 D BOS PTY 0954 1428 0 11JUL13 02NOV13 73G 5:34
CM 718 D PTY BOS 1146 1716 0 03NOV13 08MAR14 73G 5:30
CM 719 D BOS PTY 0854 1428 0 03NOV13 08MAR14 73G 5:34
Connects well to South America as predicted/reccomended above.
However, they will leave a plane at Logan for 15 hours or so!!!! I wonder if they will do something else with that free time or just have United do maintenance on the plane.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Hey guys, I have a flight on Thursday. I'm not sure if we'll take 2 buses for $1.50, or a cab for $30-40. Bus leaves us at Terminal C, and cab could take us direct to Terminal A. Is it easy to get from C to A? Or from C to Satellite A (don't know where in A we have to go yet)? Can we go through security at C and go to A without leaving security?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Logan's extremely easy to navigate. It's a very compact airport. I'm sorry, but it's downright moronic to pay an extra $40 just because of the walk to another terminal. It takes like 5-10 minutes tops.
You cannot get from C to A inside security. You cannot get to any other terminals past security in general. The satellite A is linked via an underground tunnel to A and that's the only access.
You cannot get from C to A inside security. You cannot get to any other terminals past security in general. The satellite A is linked via an underground tunnel to A and that's the only access.
But to be clear you can get from C to A outside security with no problem at all - you have a longer walk inside a single terminal at many airports
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
It's not just that, but it takes a little over an hour via bus rather than 20-30 minutes via taxi. Not a big deal to me, anyways. I'm not the one who needs convincing that bus is the way to go.
I didn't realize it could be as simple as 5 minutes between terminals. It just looks like A is a pain to get to compared to how well connected the others appear to be.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
New A is pretty cool because it was the first "green" terminal (LEED Certified) in the country.
This should be a nice addition to the Logan network. Looks like Copa has a better network to Brazil than Aeromexico. I mention them because they tried and failed in Boston.
Oh and Wikipedia now has Boston up as one of their destinations....now we know it's truly legit.
But here's a more trusted source.....
http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/07/cm-us-s13/
But here's a more trusted source.....
http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/07/cm-us-s13/
There's really no way to compare the two since Mexico would never be a suitable connecting point for most of US-Brazil traffic whereas Panama City is well positioned to handle the exact type of traffic flows Miami handles from the US to South America. The fact that Copa can use narrow body aircraft on both legs of the journey (US-PTY-Brazil) is a great advantage and major reason why they can operate nonstop into seven Brazilian cities.
AdamBC
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 15
Looks like the JAL 787 had an issue this morning: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...nal-airport/1HCFhQuwAn8ELwuDg5oDgI/story.html Smoke in the cabin would be a major concern.