Logan Airport Flights and Airlines Discussion

I thought that Terminal E was already upgraded. They're doing it again?! :eek:
 
LH422 soaring over Chelsea just now by ChelseaScanner:

CElZQdMXIAAq_GI.jpg:large
 
itchy said:
With all due respect, have you been to the Vienna airport? It's on par with LaGuardia (worst in the US), if not worse.

Europe has some nice airports (Zurich, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Stockholm). These are largely smaller airports in smaller cities... just as many of the nicer US airports are in places like Sarasota, FL, or Seattle.

But plenty - like their US counterparts - were built in earlier eras and very expensive/difficult to renovate (look at Berlin's Brandenburg Airport debacle). So they remain either fully outdated (Berlin, Milan, Rome), or a hodgepodge of gross old facilities and some newer additions tacked on, similar to Logan, JFK, etc., etc. Most of Europe's bigger airports (Munich, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam's Schiphol, Heathrow) and plenty of others (Geneva, Madrid, and Dublin (at least when I saw Dublin last 10 yrs ago)) are in that boat, IMO.

If you want to feel bad, go to Zurich's airport. But it's not that representative, even of Switzerland (the only other real airport in the country, in Geneva, is gross). Logan is on par with most, and a JFK is probably actually ahead of the Euro pack after its many recent renovations ... just don't let the horrendous roads leading in/out of JFK factor into the equation.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I've never been there. It looked like it had a nice new concourse on Google Earth :).

My comment was intended to reflect the glass curtain wall/glass boarding bridge appearance that I tend to associate with Western Europe (as opposed to the concrete wall/rusty metal bridge look in the US). I'll admit Munich was the better comparison.
 
Equilibria said:
To be honest, I've never been there. It looked like it had a nice new concourse on Google Earth :).

My comment was intended to reflect the glass curtain wall/glass boarding bridge appearance that I tend to associate with Western Europe (as opposed to the concrete wall/rusty metal bridge look in the US). I'll admit Munich was the better comparison.
Click to expand...

As an aside to itchy, I think Madrid's Terminal 4 (the only one I've flown into) is great--not at all on par with the others listed, though I agree with the sentiment.

But I think "world class" is not a term most people would apply to this modification of Terminal E. It's fine, it's functional, but when one says "world class," one generally means "high quality, if not the highest." It will remain relatively cramped with no significant architectural or technological features to distinguish it from any middle-sized city in the US and it is certainly not in the same league as most recent international airports/terminals. Like the rest of Logan, it gets the job done even if it lacks any pizazz.
 
Tombstoner said:
Like the rest of Logan, it gets the job done even if it lacks any pizazz.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this expansion not being "world class." It's aesthetically pleasing and functional.

Bringing it full circle, can you imagine the backlash against the State/Massport if it did have pizazz? We'd never hear the end of the "wasted money."
 
datadyne007 said:
I agree with you on this expansion not being "world class." It's aesthetically pleasing and functional.

Bringing it full circle, can you imagine the backlash against the State/Massport if it did have pizazz? We'd never hear the end of the "wasted money."
Click to expand...

Data -- as opposed to the T that's what I like about Massport -- they do what they do without tapping the taxpayers * wallets


* well OK the State Cops are on the taxpayers's dime
 
whighlander said:
Data -- as opposed to the T that's what I like about Massport -- they do what they do without tapping the taxpayers * wallets


* well OK the State Cops are on the taxpayers's dime
Click to expand...

Logan has always reminded me of a miniture version of Heathrow. You are trying to cram way too much airport into way too little space.

End result needs to be very creative in the use of footprint, and really functional, but not spectacular with the architecture. And in the end it actually works.
 
I noticed in the Massport Five Year Capital Plan that JetBlue is in for a privately funded $100 million project to be done circa 2017-18. Is this for some fitting out of the terminal, or a hanger, or something else?
 
Is most of this newer rehab work being done to accommodate the A-380? :confused:
 
OT...

It seems to me that I've seen prop planes using an inner harbor approach much more frequently in the last year or so. (i.e. approaching east-bound from the vicinity of the mystic, low in front of long wharf and fan pier, and then banking hard left onto either one of the 4/22s or 9/27 ...i can't tell which...).

I know that a lot of this will be seasonal (prevailing winds), but does any of you have any insight into whether there's any substance behind this impression?
 
CSTH said:
OT...

It seems to me that I've seen prop planes using an inner harbor approach much more frequently in the last year or so. (i.e. approaching east-bound from the vicinity of the mystic, low in front of long wharf and fan pier, and then banking hard left onto either one of the 4/22s or 9/27 ...i can't tell which...).

I know that a lot of this will be seasonal (prevailing winds), but does any of you have any insight into whether there's any substance behind this impression?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's a visual approach that I noticed at least 10 years ago; it's going to 4L. I often see it used when winds are strong from the NE and/or the ceiling is relatively low and they don't want to run parallel landings on 4R and 4L. I did a quick search on Google and didn't see anything that seemed to describe it. Maybe check on airliners.net or the Boston Airliner Spotters group on meetup.com.
 
^ Thanks.. and fwiw parallel landings is consistent, seems like whenever i see a turboprop screaming over the harbor there is also a long line of big birds stretching back over the blue hills...
 
Southwest is starting Boston-Austin on November 1st. Afternoon departures in both directions.

Boston-Akron/Canton is being dropped same day
 
adamh8297 said:
Southwest is starting Boston-Austin on November 1st. Afternoon departures in both directions.

Boston-Akron/Canton is being dropped same day
Click to expand...

Looks like they've cut all Florida flying out of Boston according to their route map. Austin cannot be big enough to support two carriers each fly 1 year round daily flight.
 
mass88 said:
Looks like they've cut all Florida flying out of Boston according to their route map. Austin cannot be big enough to support two carriers each fly 1 year round daily flight.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that. BOS-AUS is one of those Nerd Bird markets that can surprise.

Circa 1998 BOS-SEA had no year-round non-stops (it was a big deal for me personally when NW put a A319 nonstop in) now it has 2 on JetBlue and 3 on Alaska.

Southwest's power on the AUS end (local and connecting) seems fairly evenly matched against JetBlue's local (and Int'l feed) on the BOS end.
 
Arlington said:
I wouldn't say that. BOS-AUS is one of those Nerd Bird markets that can surprise.

Circa 1998 BOS-SEA had no year-round non-stops (it was a big deal for me personally when NW put a A319 nonstop in) now it has 2 on JetBlue and 3 on Alaska.

Southwest's power on the AUS end (local and connecting) seems fairly evenly matched against JetBlue's local (and Int'l feed) on the BOS end.
Click to expand...

Arlington -- circa the last Tech-Boom -- American operated a daily Triangle Route -- BOS - San Jose to Austin and its reverse AUS -- to San Jose -- to BOS

used to be real popular with Techies and VC's -- there were some industrial espionage types who fly the route just to clean-up the seat-back-pockets looking for business plans, etc.
 
Arlington said:
I wouldn't say that. BOS-AUS is one of those Nerd Bird markets that can surprise.

Circa 1998 BOS-SEA had no year-round non-stops (it was a big deal for me personally when NW put a A319 nonstop in) now it has 2 on JetBlue and 3 on Alaska.

Southwest's power on the AUS end (local and connecting) seems fairly evenly matched against JetBlue's local (and Int'l feed) on the BOS end.
Click to expand...

You are correct

Q3 2014 - 736 passengers per day both directions
Q4 2014 - 710 passengers per day both directions

Jetblue only has 200 (winter with E-190) to 300 (summer with A320) seats per day on the route.

Southwest will fly 143 seat 737-700 on route which results in 486 to 586 seats per day.

The connections aren't that great on Southwest (certain destinations only work in one direction) and JetBlue (morning BOS departure and late arrival) due to timing.
 
adamh8297 said:
The connections aren't that great on Southwest (certain destinations only work in one direction) and JetBlue (morning BOS departure and late arrival) due to timing.
Click to expand...

Not much fun, but thanks to that JetBlue timing, I've done BOS-AUS as a day trip several times. Can't do that with the new Southwest flights.
 
I'm flying the Boston-Austin flight next Friday morning. The airfares were quite high several months ago when I booked it, compared to fares to DFW, Houston, and San Antonio on the same dates. They got even higher after for some of my friends who booked the same flight and dates a day after I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top