Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fed Study: BOS And MHT Will See Massive Growth  
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

I know...I laughed, too. The article is here >>> http://tinyurl.com/ggl3n

You will see some rather remarkable results of a years-long study. To wit:

1.) Boston Logan's traffic will increase by 73% (!) between 2004 and 2020.

2.) Traffic at Manchester and Portland will each grow by MORE THAN 85%
(!!!!) over the same period.

Now, I'll defer to the study's results since the federal government
did the leg work and I didn't. But in this age of tiny 'lawn darts'
running MHT-ATL (one example), HOW is this '85% growth' going to
occur? Several things need to happen, but two are obvious: bigger
planes and more of them. In the end, the DEMAND SIDE of the equation
may point to some pretty bullish growth; we know the market can
support 'bigger planes and more of them.' This isn't wishful or
hopeful thinking; past history bears that out. With that said, the SUPPLY SIDE--planes and seats--needs to keep pace with the demand we know is there. I don't see bigger planes and more flights coming
through those doors, folks. So I'm left I'm scratching my head at a notion that BOS and MHT will BOTH see this kind of growth against a population trend (at
least in Massachusetts) that is sliding backward. Not counting illegal
immigrants (and who does, anyway?), Massachusetts is LOSING
population. I'd move out of that state, too, in the face of where
their intentions lie there.

Portland's growth I can sort of agree with because they have a low starting point, and in fact '85% growth' might just get them back to their
high-water mark of many years ago. I am hopeful that jetBlue is doing well
there, but they need a whole lot more 'new metal' to do what this
study says they'll do.

So, HOW do you reconcile a study like this when all we see are LAWN DARTS doing what should be MAINLINE routes?? How do you 'get there from here' against what we see out there right now? And, according to the article, no mention of PVD!!

Chris in NH

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6813 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

http://www.flymanchester.com/airlines/activity.php

Here are MHTs traffic stats. Will probably see around 4.5million this year.

What happened between 96 and 99 with the increase from 1mil to 3mil?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 1):
What happened between 96 and 99 with the increase from 1mil to 3mil?

Well, that's what the industry likes to call the 'Southwest Effect.' They launched service here in 1998, and it was in that period that Metrojet was flying and Northwest and Delta both came to town. So, those four airlines gave you the spike between 1996 and 1999. To reach the kind of figures this study projects, some similar spikes will need to blossom. I just can't fathom how or when they'll occur, especially in an era where planes are getting smaller and mainline carriers are so reluctant to introduce new service except at their big fortress cities.

Chris in NH


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

When you are talking over a 20 year plan, this is nothing uncommon.

4% annual growth equates to a 100% increase after 19 years, and 4% growth isnt anything to write home about. Seems like a another case where the media doesnt exactly understand what they writing about.

For MHT/PWM to see 85% growth over 14 years equates to just over 5% annual growth.....woohoo

Insteresting article, but it really gives the wrong impression!



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Even so, in this environment where just maintaining what you have is a challenge, are you going to dismiss at least 5% growth EVERY SINGLE YEAR for close to 20 years??? What airports are doing THAT???

When mainliners are giving way to lawn darts and legacy carriers are abandoning routes, you're going to say this is no big deal???

You may say 'woohoo' but the way the airline industry is now, that IS a big deal. I'm looking at our airport (MHT) showing a collapse in traffic this year from last (that IS a big 'so-what' because a whole bunch of airports are showing similar declines). So my skepticism comes from reconciling what is happening NOW versus what this study says will happen by 2020. I'm just not seeing an iron-clad logic chain, which is why I'd like to get my hands on the study. I'll bet you'd like to, too, to see what kind of growth the government projects for PVD!!

Chris in NH


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Actually for 4 mil pax over 14 years comes out to be 4.5% annually

The FAA National average is in the 3-4% range

As for PVD, their 2020 #'s range from 9.5-12 million depeding on the low/med/high scenario which equates to a range of 74% to 120%



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 3):
4% annual growth equates to a 100% increase after 19 years, and 4% growth isnt anything to write home about. Seems like a another case where the media doesnt exactly understand what they writing about.

For MHT/PWM to see 85% growth over 14 years equates to just over 5% annual growth.....woohoo

Well, this can be explained by several factors, including the recent "repeal" of the Wright Amendment for DAL, over the next 8 years. That will spell additional The New England area has the capacity for growth, except for BOS with these types of numbers. There are 4 New England airports that currently have enough capacity to do this without much additional infaststructure inprovements, PWM, MHT, PSM, and Providence, RI. BOS needs to expand with an additional runway and additional gates just to keep up. While a 4%-5% annual growth isn't much, it is close to the annual norm projected for all US airports. BOS is under utilized in one area that other northeast airports are approaching capacity, like JFK. That is international traffic. If airlines like DL and AA increase their international flights to the EU, they may need to do this from BOS. To accomplish this, perhaps cargo airlines like UPS, FedEx, and DHL can utilize the airport at PSM, thus freeing up some capacity at BOS for additional passenger service.


User currently offlineBostonGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 514 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
To accomplish this, perhaps cargo airlines like UPS, FedEx, and DHL can utilize the airport at PSM, thus freeing up some capacity at BOS for additional passenger service.

I don't think corporate clients of UPS, FedEx and DHL would appreciate having to wait for important documents that are on trucks stuck in traffic coming into Boston.

PSM is 60 miles from Boston, and frequently a time-consuming trip. Especially with our numerous tunnel closures in the city.

I live in the city, and right now the fastest way to get to the airport is to head directly to the airport (a 3 mile journey), turn around within sight of the airport and head 4 miles in the opposite direction, then do a U-turn at a toll plaza and head straight for the airport (that last leg a 5 mile trip).

Relocating UPS, FedEx and DHL to PSM simply isn't a viable option considering the state of the highway infrastructure in Boston.

I'm also having a hard time believing BOS will experience 4% - 5% growth over the next decade or two.


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
perhaps cargo airlines like UPS, FedEx, and DHL can utilize the airport at PSM, thus freeing up some capacity at BOS for additional passenger service.

I think MHT would be the place, inasmuch as FedEx has a three-widebody apron there already with room to expand. For their part, UPS can stage a 757, a A300-600, and a DC-8 all at the same time...something that happens from time to time when one of their aircraft goes down.

Chris in NH


User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Sounds interesting. I just hope the airport doesn't get taken over by WN! Would be nice if B6 came in...but I doubt that will happen.

I was hoping US would add flights to PHX or LAS...maybe at some point. CO to IAH would be cool too...


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

Quoting BostonGuy (Reply 7):
I'm also having a hard time believing BOS will experience 4% - 5% growth over the next decade or two

Too high or too low?

73% over the next 14 years that comes out to about 3.8% annually



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineBostonGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 514 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 8):
I think MHT would be the place, inasmuch as FedEx has a three-widebody apron there already with room to expand.

Besides not believing BOS will see the FAA's anticipated growth in passenger traffic, I also don't believe that FedEx would decide to serve Boston customers by flying into MHT.

Ain't gonna happen.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17661 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Where exactly is all this traffic going to land/takeoff/park at BOS?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 12):
Where exactly is all this traffic going to land/takeoff/park at BOS?

Hopefully mostly from larger aircraft...

25 more pax per flight x 500 flights x 2 = 25,000 daily pax which equates to roughlt 10 mil per year which accounts for 33%, a good portion of the increase....



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 10):
73% over the next 14 years that comes out to about 3.8% annually

I know these numbers sound unimpressive, but the basis for them presumes growth every single year. EVERY YEAR! Why are we so blase about this when we are in the midst of a down year right now??? Also, where are all these seats going to come from when airlines are in the midst of RJ-ing us to death??? You mean to say that all of this will stop and airlines will start flying bigger planes again? That's what has to happen in order for this growth to occur. Because I can tell you that it's not going to come on the back of a whole bunch more RJ flying; the system can't handle an avalanche of additional RJ flights. At some point, for all this sustained growth to occur, RJs are going to have to turn back into mainliners. It's either that, or new flying altogether: new routes at MHT and/or new airlines. Where's the crystal ball that says this is going to happen??

Again, you are unimpressed with 4% compounded growth for another 14 years (and whatever it might be for MHT to reach 85% growth). I'm not sure you can prove to me how that's going to occur, with the kind of 'low volume' flying airlines are doing. Heck, a 737-300 is a cause for celebration at some airports!!!

Chris in NH


User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Maybe there are secret plans to expand BOS KIX-style.  crossfingers 


Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting BostonGuy (Reply 11):
Besides not believing BOS will see the FAA's anticipated growth in passenger traffic, I also don't believe that FedEx would decide to serve Boston customers by flying into MHT.

Ain't gonna happen.

It already did: When the 2004 Democratic National Convention was in Boston, FedEx needed a contingency plan. The FedEx team at MHT crafted a plan and pulled it off marvelously by routing some planes through MHT instead. They had the trucks all sequenced--inbound and outbound--to meet the planes so they could arrive from and depart to IND/MEM without a hitch. It was such a success that the 'MHT Plan' was adopted weeks later down in NY for the RNC. No, MHT won't replace BOS for FedEx. But any additional flying FedEx chooses to do in the region can easily route through here: long runway, excellent access to Routes 3 and 93, CAT III, a residential community that doesn't 'whine' every time a plane departs, and VERY good snow-removal capabilities are what FedEx and UPS look for. They are here for those reasons.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 14):
I know these numbers sound unimpressive, but the basis for them presumes growth every single year. EVERY YEAR! Why are we so blase about this when we are in the midst of a down year right now??? Also, where are all these seats going to come from when airlines are in the midst of RJ-ing us to death??? You mean to say that all of this will stop and airlines will start flying bigger planes again? That's what has to happen in order for this growth to occur. Because I can tell you that it's not going to come on the back of a whole bunch more RJ flying; the system can't handle an avalanche of additional RJ flights. At some point, for all this sustained growth to occur, RJs are going to have to turn back into mainliners. It's either that, or new flying altogether: new routes at MHT and/or new airlines. Where's the crystal ball that says this is going to happen??

Again, you are unimpressed with 4% compounded growth for another 14 years (and whatever it might be for MHT to reach 85% growth). I'm not sure you can prove to me how that's going to occur, with the kind of 'low volume' flying airlines are doing. Heck, a 737-300 is a cause for celebration at some airports!!!

4% is not that difficult to achive over the LONG run...they arent saying MHT will gor every year, it may look something like 3%, 8%, 10%, 2% -3%, 5% etc that averages 4% in the long run.

Examples ...for PVD to achieve 4% for 2007, they will need roughly 290 additional departing seats, not terrible... thats essentially 2 new 319s and an RJ (assuming no more downgrades!)

For MHT.. 1 new WN 737@ 70% LF = 70,000 annual pax. which on 4 mil requates to 1.8% growth for that one flight alone.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

At MHT Gate 10 is listed as "available."

http://www.flymanchester.com/about/terminal.php

Will Gate 10 be gobbled up by WN? Or will the new US Scareways reclaim Gate 10?

Will we see B6, AA, FL, NK or something totally unexpected?

BTW, Gate 10 is the former FlyI gate.


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

The other thing not factored in with this study (maybe it is) is further airline consolidation and what effect that may have. I'd really like to get a hold of this study and see what underlying assumptions are made!! I will be VERY happy to see MHT grow at a CAGR of 4%-5% over the next 14 years, especially being within the orbital pull of BOS!!! That's been both a bane and a blessing for us!!

Chris in NH


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 18):
Will we see B6, AA, FL, NK or something totally unexpected?

I think MHT will see FL and B6 in the 5-10 yeat timeframe

I actually see FL doing PWM 1st since they can tie into BWI or PHL, not just ATL, which is something they cant do at MHT with WN dominating those routes.

And has much as AA and MHT go together like oil and water, i think eventually they will need some sort of presence there even if its just 3x ERJ to ORD 5-10 years from now...



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

I think PSM is the best option for the cargo airlines, it has everything MHT has and more, except a Cat. III ILS. That is an easy install.

WN is the best candidate for MHT expansion, and has the best route structure, much better than B6. WN could also send in TZ to add indirect Hawaii flights.

BOS is not a good option for any of this until they can get their new runway.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4693 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 19):
The other thing not factored in with this study (maybe it is) is further airline consolidation and what effect that may have. I'd really like to get a hold of this study and see what underlying assumptions are made!! I will be VERY happy to see MHT grow at a CAGR of 4%-5% over the next 14 years, especially being within the orbital pull of BOS!!! That's been both a bane and a blessing for us!!

As someone who does airport forecasts for a living, they tend to have good assumptions but a 20 year forcast for an airport is like the 10-day forecast on the weather channel. The only thing the forecasts are good for is to make sure that the airport is headed in the right direction in terms on capital improvements and long-range facilities planning. Even being off by 500,000 annual passengers at an airport the size of MHT doesnt really change their facility requirements.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Peter Howe of The Boston Globe just sent me the report. It's a 6+ MB pdf. Hopefully I can upload it to our MHT Yahoo Group 'Files' section.

Chris


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

I am not so optomistic on BOS. BOS is still trying to fix the problems with the collapsed tunnel section, which have made accessing the airport tricky. Add to this a report saying that the Sumner and Callahan tunnels are in real bad shape and will need major overhauls requiring them to be closed for a long period of time, I don't see why people would bother with the hassle of BOS when MHT and PVD are easily accessible and don't have the delay problems that BOS has.

25 RL757PVD : It depends where the low-fares are.... my family is 25 min from PVD and 1 hr from BOS, but from ATL, im not paying $500 for fly on a CRJ for 3 hrs to
26 ChrisNH : After 9/11 Boston's air traffic collapsed, moreso there than at other airports. So the folks at Massport, who once tried to chase interested airlines
27 BostonGuy : Can't be done without destroying Boston Harbor Islands National Park. Yeah, but we had NO traffic in the city during the DNC because so many companie
28 COERJ145 : I hope F9 comes back to New England, MHT or BOS could be a good market for them.
29 RL757PVD : Rumors ive heard say BDL might be their new england re-entry, but that doesnt cover BOS... even with BOS, PVD or MHT could still eventually see them.
30 Boslax : I think its a long shot that Frontier would ever come back to Boston, even though while they were here, their loads were respectable. If memory serves
31 ChrisNH : Well, to be fair, you weren't discussing 'moving out of Logan permanently' and neither was I. We were talking about serving the Boston market from MH
32 BostonGuy : Actually, KC135TankerBoom was discussing a permanent move. And that is who I quoted and responded to. You quoted and responded to him, too. How could
33 PHLBOS : That new runway that you speak of, if I'm not mistaken, is the Runway 14-32 project; which I believe is presently under construction (at least it was
34 PVD757 : Colgan has more than a few SF3 ops and Commutair has several BE1 ops at BOS too - I'm sure they too will make good use of the "Cape Air" runway.
35 Post contains images Airbazar : I don't see why that's so surprising. Last year BOS had an increase of 3.6% over 2004. And this year we're on track for an increase of about 5.5% over
36 PHLBOS : No doubt, I was just throwing a couple of examples. IIRC, most if not all of those gates are leased (though not fully-used) to DL. Though they're in
37 ChrisNH : You certainly do. And if one taxpayer leaves and five freeloaders come--and that's exactly what you'll get in Massachusetts--something has to give. T
38 PHLBOS : Chris, that's not my quote. Airbazar was the one that stated that. Something must've went haywire with the Quote Selected Text feature. That has happ
39 Post contains images ChrisNH : Ooops! I'm sorry . I just copied the text and the system did the rest. I'm sorry... Chris in NH
40 Airbazar : . They can and Massport is currently in negotiations with DL to do just that. I think that going forward, with passenger numbers increasing and airpo
41 TPAnx : Any thoughts as to how ORH might play in all of this? TPAnx
42 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the moves I suggested should be permanent. BOS currently gets around 100-120 freighter movements each day (according to MassPort). U
43 Boston92 : Somebody said it would be like 4% a year growth. But you have to calibrate that 4% for MHT is different than LAX. LAX four % could be 150 additional f
44 ChrisNH : Well, forget BED. The NIMBYs there won't have it. They come out en masse (complete with sign-carrying recruits) every time the words 'airline' and 'Ha
45 COERJ145 : I agree. There are too many rich/snotty people who live here(I live in concord). Actually, I think some of the corperate jets at BED belong to corper
46 Airbazar : MHT is far better located than PSM. PSM is way too far to the East without any direct highway link form the West. The only highway access you have to
47 KC135TopBoom : So what major east/west highway does MHT have? It does have I-93, again a north south highway. PSM does have direct access to I-95, US Route 1, and i
48 ChrisNH : FedEx previously used MHT as a mini hub for the rest of northern New England. But then they changed strategy and decided to serve PWM and Burlington w
49 Airbazar : It doesn't really need one, that's the beauty of it. Most of the business is along I-93 and Rt-3. MHT is right in the middle of it.
50 ChrisNH : Well, to be fair Route 101 is 'the' east/west highway that commerce uses. Like I said in my latest post, it is a marvelous road between Manchester an
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...
Ray Webster - Will See Strong Growth In Germany.. posted Tue Nov 22 2005 16:24:58 by Beaucaire
Flights Between BOS And BRU (and MAD) Expected. posted Sat Oct 28 2006 17:24:44 by Manni
When Will I See An A380 In MEM? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 05:39:34 by Bobbidooley
October You Will See 1st VS A/C In New Livery. posted Tue Jul 4 2006 21:31:03 by Speedmarque
NZ And QF Will Merge Trans-Tasman Operations posted Wed Mar 29 2006 12:54:39 by 777ER
When And Where Will IB 757's Go? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 22:50:55 by Lazyshaun
U. K. Study: Open And Unrestricted Slot Trading OK posted Wed Mar 1 2006 15:38:25 by Leelaw
No Service Between BOS And Iberian Peninsula posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:22:55 by 9KBOS
ARN Will See MH B777 New Livery 20 Jan posted Thu Jan 19 2006 21:07:39 by TristarSteve
Who Flies Between BOS And TPA posted Wed Dec 21 2005 19:22:48 by JasYHZ