Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No AA In MHT?  
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4304 posts, RR: 6
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

This puzzles me. Most of the other major carriers fly into MHT with mainline aircraft. US, UA, NW, CO, and DL all fly mainline into MHT. WN has a significant presence here in MHT and they have expanded the new terminal already once since opening. My question is, where is AA? They don't even serve the airport with American Eagle. I know AA has a huge presence in BOS, but MHT is easier for many people who live north of the city. The loads are pretty good from what I have seen in the airport for the other airlines. (I will criticize BOS in another thread) And Eagle used to serve ORH, where its tough to get good loads because of the bad access.

My question is, why not run a couple of MD-80s or 738's into MHT? Obviously on the ORD flight you would be competing with both UA and WN who both fly Chicago-MHT and have good loads. But what about DFW? No one flies this route and you would be giving great connections to Latin America and the west coast from Manchester. And it can easily be done with the 9000 foot runway in MHT. Why are they so reluctant?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

IIRC they used to fly an SF-340 to BOS from MHT. Not much point there. As for other service, I don't think they'd want to undermine their focus city in BOS either. I'm not so sure if theres any gate space available at MHT right now either.

User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3418 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

AA is protecting BOS as they have since WN entered the Northeast in the late 90's. As evidence, look at the recent downsizeing of what was a small build up in PVD. Last September, PVD had 5X ORD, 1X DFW, 4X RDU. This June we will have 3X ORD, and 1X DFW - thats it!

User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5296 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

AE used to fly BOS-MHT. AE also used to fly ORD-PWM, so my guess is that AA felt that between service from ORD to PWM, PVD, and BDL, as well as the amount of service at BOS, it had New England covered.

User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8912 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

Last route out of MHT that they flew was MHT-LGA, a few times a day on the Saab 340. This had been going on for a few years, it was discontinued in mid-2001 I believe. Before then, it had been both BOS and LGA (as Business Express, which was a DL/NW/AA codeshare operation)...

Jeff


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3524 times:

The conventional wisdom is that they don't serve MHT in order to 'protect' their operation at Logan. But if that thesis held, then there'd be no UA, no NW, no DL, and no US here because they'd all be 'protecting their flanks' in Boston. So what's the real reason? Beats me. But I don't spend time wishing AA would come here because we're doing fabulously without them. The gates are full in the morning and evening when AA would likely want flights to depart and arrive. Simply put, there's no place for AA to set up shop even if they wanted to come here, either on the land side (counter space) or the air side (gate space).

Chris in NH


User currently offlineMQrampBOS From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 3):
AE also used to fly ORD-PWM, so my guess is that AA felt that between service from ORD to PWM, PVD, and BDL, as well as the amount of service at BOS, it had New England covered.

They also had ORD-ORH, but that was a concession to Massport. Would've been better to run ORD-MHT. People are actually willing to fly out of MHT. If Eagle weren't focusing on DFW, we might see someting.



Don't put me on A7! I got out of the airport, so why send me back?
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4304 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

I don't know if ORD-MHT could work with Eagle. UA runs about 6 flights a day, and other than one ERJ, all the flights are either 737's or A319's. Plus Southwest runs the 737's MDW-MHT as well. Mainline jets are more comfortable and I think would keep the business, especially with UA having E+ and southwest being low cost.

User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4149 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

To be accurate, UA has actually cut their capacity on the MHT-ORD route, along with a system-wide initiative to reduce capacity. The 757s have shrunk to 737-300s and A319s, so the number of daily seats between these cities is down from this time last year. That said, AA could--in my opinion--come in and do well. AA clearly has a 'thing' about Southwest...a thing that the other majors obviously don't share since they can peacefully coexist at MHT with Southwest. AA would do much better by starting MHT-DFW service than they would with MHT-ORD service. The former has absolutely no competition whereas the latter has plenty. And like I said, even there the number of daily seats is down which might make AAs entry more feasible. As for DFW service, that's an MD-80 route if ever there was one. In my estimation, the REAL thing keeping AA from MHT is lack of counter and gate space...pure and simple.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

AA already flys about 6-8 DFW-BOS each day now. There wouldn't be much sence flying to Manchester, NH.

User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6784 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
AA already flys about 6-8 DFW-BOS each day now. There wouldn't be much sence flying to Manchester, NH

Boston, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire are 3 different markets with 3 different sets of people.. although there is some bleeding between the 3, any airline should be able to see that all 3 areas can support flights on their own.. If AA flies to MHT, does that mean they would have to decrease the 6-8 DFW flights.. no.. it just means they would be making passengers in all their stations happy.. I just don't understand it..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineGeorgiabill From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have read in the Manchester Union Leader last fall that the airport is to add 3 or 4 gates this year. However I believe right now they have a couple gates under used and counter space available. A more important question should be, when does MHT see expansion of services from existing carriers. UA to Denver for example or NW to Memphis? If Pittsburgh is as successful as Phl for SWA then I believe eventually SWA will begin nonstops between MHT and PIT. I think it would be more likely to see Airtran or Jetblue before we see American flying from MHT. If you want to be overly optimistic why not hope for Icelandair offering 2 or 3 flights per week to Europe connecting in Keflavik? Summer season could be successful.

User currently offlineMQrampBOS From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
AA already flys about 6-8 DFW-BOS each day now. There wouldn't be much sence flying to Manchester, NH.

There was a time when airlines were encouraged not to use BOS and instead use PVD, MHT, ORH, and even BED (Massport originally wanted B6 at ORH). However, when flights started getting cut, more space opened up in BOS. If flights come back to pre-2001 levels, we might see it again.



Don't put me on A7! I got out of the airport, so why send me back?
User currently offlineBigKing From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
AA already flys about 6-8 DFW-BOS each day now. There wouldn't be much sence flying to Manchester, NH.

There is a lot of sense in flying to MHT. I fly between the West Coast and New England 3 times a year, I used to do that on AA to BOS because I could get non-stops from the West Coast to BOS, and then suffer the 1.5-2 hour transit from BOS up to NH. Since AA has cut many transcons into BOS, I now have the option of stopping in either ORD or DFW, AND suffering the drive north out of Boston, often late in the day when you arrive from the West Coast. I stopped flying AA. If I am going to have to stop and change planes somewhere then I might as well fly direct to MHT on UA, DL, US or CO. I am evaluating my flight choices based on door to door time, and flying into BOS adds at least 2 hours if your ultimate destination is NH, VT or ME. By the time you claim bags at BOS, take the car rental shuttle to the lot, navigate the tunnels and the evening commute north (there is no way to avoid it from the West Coast other than to take a red eye) a trip into BOS has added 2 hours in comparison to MHT, even though they are about 40 miles apart.


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4304 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting MQrampBOS (Reply 12):
There was a time when airlines were encouraged not to use BOS and instead use PVD, MHT, ORH, and even BED (Massport originally wanted B6 at ORH). However, when flights started getting cut, more space opened up in BOS. If flights come back to pre-2001 levels, we might see it again.

Massport is a big hypocrite. They say they are pushing for airlines to use MHT and PVD more but then they bent over backwards to ensure that B6 came into BOS and not MHT, even using the Southwest argument. They say the airport is too congested yet invite more airlines to come in and continue to renovate and make worse one of the worse terminal structures in the country. I am a big airline fan and anything but a NIMBY but I think 14-32 is going to be a big waste of money. 5,000 feet is not enough runway to handle RJ's in many conditions, and most of the regional airlines are using RJ's. The only Airlines I see that will be able to make any use of the new Runway would be Cape Air, which can already use 33R in the northwest winds, Commutair, and Piedmont, with the prop planes. At AWAC, when the main runway was down in PWM, we had to actually run 146's into PWM just because the back up runway was too short for the CRJ. We are even Weight Restricted in White Plains because of Runway length.


User currently offlineMQrampBOS From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
Massport is a big hypocrite. They say they are pushing for airlines to use MHT and PVD more but then they bent over backwards to ensure that B6 came into BOS and not MHT, even using the Southwest argument.

Part of that has to do with all the $$$ going to RI and NH instead. I don't even think it was Massport's idea to have airlines at PVD or MHT, though they pushed ORH to death.

Quoting Apodino (Reply 14):
I am a big airline fan and anything but a NIMBY but I think 14-32 is going to be a big waste of money.

Agreed. A short, uni-directional, wind-restricted runway is not a smart way to blow $1 billion. Then again, they spent 30 years fighting to get this built, and just to show up the surrounding neighborhoods, they're gonna do it! They could've spent the last 15 years preparing Fort Devens or at least attempting to find an alternate site.



Don't put me on A7! I got out of the airport, so why send me back?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No AA In SAV? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 19:59:13 by AirtranSAV
Why No AA In Amsterdam? posted Thu Apr 12 2001 18:30:46 by Arsenal@LHR
Why No AA Eagle In NM/CO? posted Fri Jun 24 2005 15:24:28 by BigGSFO
No AA At MHT - Why? posted Tue Sep 9 2003 19:58:15 by Expex
Why No Tupolev In US posted Tue Oct 31 2006 23:02:27 by KingAirMan
Why No Windows In Toilets posted Sun Sep 17 2006 14:19:03 by Albird87
Why No AA SLC-MIA? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 18:00:26 by SLCUT2777
Why No 757's In India? posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:49:08 by Deaphen
Why No UA In LGW? posted Sun May 28 2006 06:48:42 by Apodino
Why No Southwest In MSP? posted Tue May 9 2006 07:10:36 by NW757MSP
Why No CX In ZRH? posted Sun Dec 11 2011 08:58:19 by winGl3t
Why No AA @ OAK? posted Fri Sep 30 2011 16:13:22 by Sevensixtyseven
Why No AA 737-700? posted Mon Dec 6 2010 07:34:30 by 1337Delta764
Why No IFE In This Row On The A380 posted Mon Aug 16 2010 07:39:33 by c5load
Why No Seats In Aviodrome Fokker 100 Yet? posted Sat Jun 26 2010 13:26:59 by kl5147
Why No A330s In Japan? posted Mon May 31 2010 08:17:39 by PM