Kearnet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 241 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4944 times:
Well It's it's only taken 2+ decades, but Boston Logan (BOS) can finally build the another runway that will hopefully remove some of the congestion the field is known for: http://www.whdh.com/news/articles/local/A29474/
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 18389 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4919 times:
It's tiny (about 5000'), and can only be used when the wind is blowing in a certain direction, on Tuesdays, in years that end in 9, and only by captains that are Libras. That said, hell must have frozen over because I thought I'd never see any kind of runway development in BOS.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4859 times:
Useless? Hardly. Under virtually all wind conditions, most turbo props would normally have little difficulty getting on the new runway. On windy days, 5000ft is enough for even light Boeing/Airbus models. Also significant is that BOS' biggest operator in terms of movements is Cape Air, using Cessna 402s. Those would have no problem at all using 5000ft, and it would free up slots on longer runways.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4275 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4818 times:
Now Boston Mayor Menino can practice speaking out of both sides of his mouth again: He'll rant and rave and complain about the new runway while imploring tourists to come to 'his' city and attend the new (already over-budget and a white-elephant) convention center.
Bosugadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4748 times:
This is great news, hopefully it will help all those delays...Does anyone know when construction will begin and when it will be completed? (God will the construction in Boston ever STOP!!!!!)
Also, a little off topic, does anyone know what's up with the small 2000'+ runway 15L/33R...Was this a runway that was never finished and if so, why not?...And why is there no talk about expanding this runway?
Cs03 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4728 times:
Useless! No! As the above posts have said, many small carriers use BOS, and these regional operators will greatly benefit from this new runway. I do agree that a longer runway would help all carriers using BOS, but as usual, there had to be a compromise. That is the problem. Lots of time and money wasted for what....
Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 11107 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4684 times:
About damn time! I honestly don't understand why people in the surrounding communities are upset about shifting more approaches over the harbor, instead of over residential neighborhoods. Now I live 2 miles from Hanscom Field (one of the alternative suggestions), and frankly, I'd love to see some commercial activity out of there (though I'm in the tiny minority on that one, I know). But Logan has needed another runway for way too long. One question though is why didn't they design this runway to be parallel to the 15/33s? Would it conflict with existing taxiways, buildings, or the harbor? Also, it is my understanding that this runway is only to be used for landings to the NW, and takeoffs to the SE (which don't happen frequently at all).
If you look at an overhead picture or map of Logan, there are small clues that it was originally conceived to have 3 sets of parallel runways, which would be the 4/22 (already exist), 15/33, and 9/27 sets. These "clues" are such things as what seems to be a 150 ft taxiway that lines up with where a runway would be - don't know how realistic it is though. May be my imagination.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 7056 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
Well, it's more-or-less parallel to the 15-33's (though 15L-33R is so short as to be essentially useless), even the new runway is planned to be 14-32. Basically, it's going into the only available space on the airfield -- there's no way that Massport would get approval to fill any of the tidal flats closer to Winthrop, and building the new runway anywhere else on the property would require demolishing much of the terminal complex (not that this would be a bad thing...)
It'd be nice if they had the stones to build it to 6500-7000 feet so that it'd actually be more useful...but this is Massachusetts *sigh*
Eastbay From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4557 times:
I've landed several times with Beech 1900's on 33R. When the wind really blows right down the pipe it's not too difficult, but you gotta set it down on the numbers. Still, it's preferable to take the longer runway but when approach tells you that the final for 33L is 35 miles long, and you have 9 more legs to do that day, 33R sounds a lot better. The funny thing was that we had takeoff data for that runway, with authorization only for temperatures well below zero, and with a max takeoff weight of ZFW plus maybe 300 pounds.
Kearnet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4541 times:
*Getting slightly off subject* what attracted me to this story was that in the promo on TV, it showed a DL L-1011 landing, I had the sound off so I didn't know what it was about.
I just got around to looking at the video that can be view from my included link above, and I started laughing when I that it contained footage of a TWO jet, BEX planes, and a US 727. Man do I love stock footage. *OK back on subject*