L1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
I'm wondering why PSM isn't attracting the attention of major airlines as an alternative to Boston's Logan as an international airport. It seems to me (as a novice on the subject) that Pease offers:
1. 350+ acres of area to build hangers near the runway
2. A new terminal for both domestic and international
3. A well populated area
4. An 11,000+ foot runway.
5. Convenient to both Boston and southern Maine (Portland)
6. Hassle free for pax when compared to Logan's traffic nightmare
Pease has been open to both Military and civilian use since 1991. What's holding it back from being a major airport??
L1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1779 times:
Pease as a civilian airport has been operating since 1991. The new Pan Am is based at Pease and flies to Puerto Rico, among other places. Is there public transportation links? Not quite sure. There isn't a subway system like Boston. I'd say it's about 30 to 40 miles from Boston and approx 40-50 from Portland.
GD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
PSM would be a good BOS releiver, it is right next to Interstate 95, has an easily expandable airline terminal, and has a runway over 11,000 feet. Pan Am already flies 727s to SFB and San Juan, I think.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
There is a Greyhound stop at PSM I think, but that's about it.
Part of the problem with PSM is that it got into the game a little too late. BOS is a 45 minute straight shot down I-95/US-1, and MHT is less than an hour away too (I forget which NH highway links Portsmouth and Manchester), and PWM is also about an hour away. All three of these airports are extremely well-served, so PSM is more or less stuck in a bad position.
L1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
I thought PSM would make a great alternate gateway to eastern Europe as an alternate to BOS. MHT does not have international flights with the exception of one or two flights from Air Canada and Portland isn't international. It's about an hour drive from MHT to PSM on RT101. An 11,000' runway could land just about any airplane.
BostonBeau From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
I remember during one of the Arab-Israeli conflicts back in the 1970s, lying on the beach at Hampton seeing El Al B747's with the logo crudely painted out coming in to land at Pease. I've also wondered why there is not additional services beyond what Pan Am offers.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
I still don't think that PSM would be able to attract European carriers away from BOS. BOS has several things working in its advantage, such as a new, beautiful international terminal, and that you can be in downtown Boston in less than 10 minutes after leaving the terminal. It is also a little too far from ski country to attract any charters, leaving BGR as the only candidate until MHT finishes 17/35 this fall (which is already paying dividends with the launch of MHT-LAS, previously MHT-MCI was a stretch).
Also, getting to PSM from the South can be a hassle, especially during the summertime, with the Hampton tolls. That could be a factor in keeping traffic away from PSM. And as I said earlier, PSM is 47 miles away from PWM (where UAX flies to IAD and ORD, AEagle flies to LGA and ORD, Delta mainline flies to ATL and CVG, Delta Connection to LGA and BOS, Northwest mainline to DTW, COX to EWR, CLE, and ALB, US mainline to PIT and PHL, USX to LGA and DCA), 32 miles from MHT (UA mainline to ORD, UAX to IAD, DL and DLX to CVG and ATL, NW to MSP and DTW, US to CLT, PIT, PHL, USX to LGA, DCA, WN to LAS, BWI (11x daily), MCO, TPA, MCI, MDW, BNA, AC to YYZ), and BOS (I won't even go there).
Theiler From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1666 times:
Well, as far as Pease goes, it has several advantages and several disadvantages, many of which were mentioned above...
Other advantages- easy access to I-95, which basically covers the population north of Boston. My biggest complaint with Manchester is that it's kind of obnoxious to get to 93 and 101. Boston isn't exactly nice either, though both places are OK, once you get used to them. There is scheduled bus service there (CJ Trailways) to Boston.
Another advantage, lots of space, as mentioned. Plenty of room to handle any type of aircraft, at any weight, with almost unlimited apron space for parking, etc. Lots of room for expansion, as was mentioned.
There are disadvantages.. A big one, in my opinion is the lack of a crosswind runway, as is fairly typical of former SAC bases.. There will never be a crosswind runway there either. Way too many liberal NIMBY's in Portsmouth/Newington.
Honestly, I forsee cargo as PSM's biggest hope for the near future (5 years). Once the economy rolls around, and air traffic picks up, BOS is going to renew efforts for the new runway, and cargo activity isn't as likely to be encouraged as much. MHT has cargo activity now (Fed Ex, UPS, Abex), but I don't see that expanding all that much. Realistically, the 9,000 foot runway might not even be long enough for the heaviest aircraft on hot, humid days.
Time will tell, though. The way the northern Boston area is growing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a substantial expansion of both PSM and MHT in the next ten years.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Jeff has it exactly right, in my opinion: If not for Manchester, Pease would likely be seeing more success. First off, an 11,000-foot runway by itself does not a successful airport make. Let's agree on that right now. PSM's available market areas would be Boston to the south, southern Maine to the north, and Manchester/Nashua to the west/southwest. For the Boston market, where do you think the magic line is that would make someone opt for Pease over Logan...Danvers? Newburyport? My point is, many people in that densely populated Boston area would choose Logan anyway, because it's closer. If the distance between Boston and Pease is, say, 50 miles, then anyone 25 miles and closer to Logan would theoretically opt for Logan, right? Whether you have to go over the Tobin Bridge or through the Hampton tollbooth, there's an impediment in either case...and try going through the Hampton tolls on a Friday after 3pm.
To the north, same question: at what point does it make more sense to go UP to PWM than DOWN to Pease? Kennebunk? Biddeford? Wells? You see my point: the 'market' that PSM could claim as its own, really isn't its own.
And as for the Manchester/Nashua market, well...getting back to my initial thesis: if not for MHT, PSM might be enjoying a better fate. PSM as a cargo center is viable; I think several cargo carriers--although I don't believe the Big Two (UPS/FE) for some reason--already use PSM. FedEx has been rumored to be ready to ramp up MHT flight operations once 17/35 goes to 9,250 feet. They have lots of land at MHT and already fly A300-600s through here each day and 'experimented' with DC-10s a couple years ago. There is no meaningful difference between 9,250 feet and 11,000 when it comes to today's powerful widebodied aircraft and their engines. And the hottest & most humid day you could think of is akin to a Hundred Year Flood...statistically irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. In the end, it's a very very short list of things that PSM could handle that the newly-lengthened MHT runway can't handle. Pretty much the Space Shuttle. Which is flying even less than the 'new' Pan Am these days
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
PSM was once the rumored site of Alliance Aircraft's Starliner plant (the long-delayed and much derided airliner family), but Alliance dropped those plans after not getting the tax breaks they wanted (or so they said). I think Pease could definitely be a major cargo facility if any major cargo airline wanted it to be. Eventually, cargo flights @ BOS will get squeezed out in favor of passenger flights, and PSM could land even the biggest cargo bird with no problem at all. The cargo area at Logan is tiny compared to the cargo areas at other major East Coast airports. With Massport being all into getting people and airlines to start using the other airports to relieve BOS, they may as well start forcing cargo flights elsewhere. MHT seems to be the airport of choice for UPS and Fed Ex, but think of the size of an operation they could build @ PSM. PSM could be a good site for the 7E7 plant as well. With Boeing hiring a company to evaluate sites in several US states, somewhere like PSM offers a lot of what Boeing requires for the new plant (unless you are one of those that think Boeing is doing this 'search' in order to get a better deal out of Washington State).
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
I haven't heard any mention of Boeing thinking about building the 7E7 in NH...I was reading an article in the Mobile Register last week (because some airport in Alabama is vying for the 7E7), and I don't remember reading New Hampshire as a potential state.
As for the magic line, I would say Newburyport. I'm in Danvers, and have driven to both PSM and BOS from there. It took me a solid 45 minutes to get to PSM, while only 20 minutes to get to BOS. I think PSM could handle more cargo flights, as it has the right facilities for that, but I am still questioning anything more than a few puddlejumpers. We have to remember that US Airways is not operating into PSM, and US Airways operates into virtually every airport on the Eastern Seaboard. If US Airways is neglecting it, then something must not be appealing.
Theiler From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
Chris, we are going to have to agree to disagree about the runway length issue.... There is absolutely a meaningful difference, in my opinion.
Like I said, the next ten years will be very telling. Quite frankly, I estimate that the whole area north of 128 in Boston up to Southern Maine will continue to grow population and industry wise. I hate to imagine a So-Cal type of situation, but multiple commercial airports are a definate possibility down the road.
I was curious about the Boeing deal as well.. Obviously it's an unlikely long shot, but there is a lot of airside space still available on the north end of the field, and the Tradeport in general, and they are rumored to be building a new access road to the north apron (north of the NHANG ramp).
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8770 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
PSM could come in handy many years down the line, as I can easily envision the Northeast corridor really extending up to Portland within the next 50 years. But first, let's examine the existing airport situation:
Boston: after Terminal A is done, BOS will pretty much be at capacity. The only parts of the airport that will not have been redone are the current Delta pier (which could easily get redone after DL/CO moves out, since I think CO and NW might move over to A in 2005), and Terminal D. After that, there will be no room for future expansion for either cargo or passenger services. BOS can only handle a limited amount more of flights, but BOS will be at capacity relatively soon.
Manchester: They will only be able to open up another 10-12 gates on the B concourse before they have to build a new terminal. They will have 16 gates by the end of the year, so a maximum of 25-28 gates can be built at MHT (since B3b would become B4). I could see this being obtained down the line, but not relatively soon. By 2050 maybe, but who knows.
Bedford: Have you ever been to Bedford/Concord/Lexington? The neighbours are amongst the biggest NIMBYs I have ever seen, and they will fight to the death over any new flights. More or less I could see BED becoming to Boston what TEB is to New York.
Worcester: once again, a NIMBY problem. There is potential in ORH, but only if they can get the access road built. I have never been to ORH, but I have heard that you have to drive through residential neighbourhoods, which is an annoyance. If the access road can be built, then about 1-1.5 million people could use ORH, but it would be an East-Coast airport (pretty much ATL, ORD, NYC, PHL, DC, etc.)
Portland: I think they are pretty much hedged in in terms of space (I believe they have water and neighbourhoods around them).
Once the other (current) options are expired, then we might see PSM pick up. But, there will have to be a larger population base in the area, as the coastal towns are not that large until you get to around Danvers (save for Newburyport).
Theiler From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
Interestingly enough a Boeing 777 was at PSM this afternoon. I have no idea why or what the story was. It was a "Boeing" callsigned aircraft, but I'm not sure if it was a test flight for the 773ER or what (it was going westbound).
Out of curiousity, where is there space for expansion at MHT? I don't spend very much time there (I can get to BOS as quickly), so I'm not overly familiar with it. Is there any space to the east of 17/35 or is that pretty much shot with the hill over there? Is that area between the tower and the terminal big enough for expansion?
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
My point about the runway length was made in this context: aircraft are NOT getting larger. Aside from the A380, everything on the drawing boards and in production now can easily operate out of a field having a 9,250-foot runway. Engine technology being what it is now, aircraft are able to lift off using less concrete than a decade or two ago (when 11,000 feet WOULD have a bearing on capability; the 737-200 versus a 737-700, to use the engine analogy).
Yes, there are exceptions to that: MHT-NRT, sure, or a 100-degree day with oppressive humidity...but why even talk about such far-fetched and statistically irrelevant scenarios? But in the end, any flight that MHT might reasonably expect to want or have, we can have starting later this year. And I'll gladly drive to PSM to watch the Space Shuttle land on all 11,000 feet of its concrete.
Theiler From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1478 times:
Chris- take a stab at my second question?
Out of curiousity, where is there space for expansion at MHT ... Is there any space to the east of 17/35 or is that pretty much shot with the hill over there? Is that area between the tower and the terminal big enough for expansion?
(You can probably dispense with the Space Shuttle talk.. we get your point)
Afay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Anyone who lives in southern NH can tell you that 100 degree days with 90% humidity are not statistically impossible, but happen several times a summer. As for the NIMBY bashers, hellloooooo!, like there is room at PSM for a 9,000 runway. Maybe if they levelled half of downtown Portsmouth and all the new industry at PSM for it. It really would be in your backyard.
Zrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2872 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
I think that rather than look north, we should look at the area where I-95 and I-495 intersect between Boston and Providence. There is (I think) an old AFB there. I forget the name. Plenty of space, easy to get around. Great reliever.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
The space between the terminal and the tower is (or will be) available for B-concourse expansion (where Southwest is now). From what I hear, we will be getting a brand new (and taller) tower to replace the one we have. I understand that the present tower atop the Aamon Terminal Building is positioned such that it 'blocks' (?) CAT III capability on the new Runway 17/35. In other words, full CAT III operations cannot commence until that tower is removed...and that can't happen until the new tower is built. So, that Aamon Terminal Building--which served as Manchester's main terminal until Dec 31, 1993--may not be long for this world. Our terminal is being extended by four new gates on the A-side, and there is plenty of room to extend the terminal by at least as much on the B-side.
Across Runway 17/35 indeed is a hill, so not much can (or will be) done over there. GA and Wiggins is over there; that's where Icelandair parked their 757 this past winter, and where Air Force One and other VIP arrivals go.
Finally, in looking at Federal Express' location at MHT, there is room for them to grow their operation. We heard some time ago that with the runway extension FE would shift some of their flights from BOS to MHT (they are squeezed much more at Logan than at MHT).
Believe me, I am not bashing PSM in any way. My folks live up in Kennebunkport, so I drive by there each time I visit. I love going in to watch the KC-135s, and see what's sitting on the ramp (often an Allegro 727). With the whole shift from TAC/SAC base to Civilian, I was hoping that Pease Tradeport would indeed flourish. If you drive around the place, it is lovely...Red Hook Brewery et al. It is perfectly positioned along Route 95. It would be great if Boeing looked at PSM, but I'm sure they'll stay in Washington.
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
To answer your 'Boeing' question it was probably one of our Air Force rotators from the desert. We use Pease ANGB as one of our Customs points of entry, sense the USAF security Police are customs agents also. I came through there a few weeks ago on a C-141 myself. This is why you often get our chartered rotators. Bangor, Maine is another big one we use.
Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS, Yankee Air Pirate
SCXmechanic From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 534 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
CO used PSM for flight training on their B772 and B764's So I don't see why Boeing wouldn't use it for flight testing as well. I think I read or heard something a few years back that Boeing had used PSM for some certification flights.
As for the NIMBY's at PSM. While I was based there for a few months. We would have people calling Airport Ops complaining about the noise from our B727's APU that was running as we were doing MX late at night.
The only reason we were operating from PSM in the first place was BOS had no place to park us overnight. So we would have to drop off BOS pax at night and ferry the aircraft to PSM and the crew would get a short nap and ferry it back 5-7 hrs later.. Crazy huh?
But I have to say this.. The group at PSM Airport Ops and the guys at the FBO on the field were great! They took good care of us.. Heck even the guys at PanAm helped me a few times with some tooling and such.. I really enjoyed my time in that part of New England..