cessna53996 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 15 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 months 19 hours ago) and read 2800 times:
B6 has had 3 visits to Worcester, one by the CEO himself, Dave Barger, so the feeling in Worcester is that B6 will be at ORH by the end of the year. The last meeting was with several key executives, and they said they'd make a decision by the end of the year. New Massport CEO Thomas Glynn said that if they were to come they would fly to MCO and FLL, both with the E190 and each 1x daily. Also Massport is moving forward with a CATIII ILS on 29/11, so the comittment for Massport is there. I'd still like to see them fly ORH-JFK, but ORH needs to sustain these 2 daily flights first!
Worcester belives that JetBlue's sucess will produce a domino effect including DL, UA, and maybe even the 'new' AA.
DL: 3x daily 717 to ATL,
2x daily CRJ7 to DTW
UA: 2x daily CRJ7 to ORD
3x daily DH8-200 to EWR
Seeing the 717 in DL colors at ORH would be an incredible sight, and the 717 would be a great niche airplane with 110 seats. The CRJ2 may be a better plane for ORH-DTW, but with DL trying to outst it, it might not work.
CairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 337 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 18 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Not too long ago, Northwest, Piedmont, Continental, and UsAirways all flew out of Worcester. Tough market to serve being less the an hour away from BOS and 1.5 hours away from BDL. But with the right routes and fares, it could actually work.
boslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 17 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Lets not get too carried away about the viability of air service at Worcester. jetBlue is pretty smart. There's a bigger prize at BOS that Massport is dangling in front of jetBlue if they serve ORH. Revenue guarantees will need to be in place and the local community will need to contribute. The only way other network carriers will create a domino effect is if they are provided the same incentives that jetBlue will receive. Ground access is still a challenge at ORH. I believe jetBlue can fill two flights a day to Florida, however, it will very low yielding and come at a hefty price in terns of incentives.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 16 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 1): If so.... would this not be 4 airports in the Boston area with scheduled commercial airline service, along with BOS, PVD and MHT?
Yes, but B6 hasn't started MHT, at least not yet.
Quoting boslax (Reply 5): Ground access is still a challenge at ORH.
The big issue is the lack of highway access. I don't know why the street signs from Route 146 point traffic up I-290 to Route 122 when Cambridge Street from the end of the freeway is quicker, then up Main and Goddard. But there is the #19 bus from Union Station and maybe Massport will offer a shuttle there.
boslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2115 times:
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 8): Though I wonder why Allegiant hasnt tried it
They actually did. Allegiant served ORH-SFB from December 2005 - August 2006. Load factors averaged 78%. When Allegiant abruptly left Worcester, the former Mayor of Worcester, and now Lieutenant Governor, Tim Murray, blasted Allegiant CEO Maurice Gallagher saying " This is not the type of guy we want to do business with, this is an example of the charlatans that exist in the corporate world." Don't expect Allegiant to return to ORH anytime soon.
nkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Quoting cessna53996 (Thread starter): Worcester belives that JetBlue's sucess will produce a domino effect including DL, UA, and maybe even the 'new' AA.
I got to admire their optimism, but has ORH ever had that much service at once..... I was actually thinking ORH would be a prime spot for F9 the way they are going right now
cessna53996 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 4 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
To my knowledge F9 only operates out of TTN 3-4 times per week, so that probably would not work because Massport only wants carriers at ORH that will operate daily flights, so for Allegiant, F9, or NK to work, they would have to operate daily flights. NK may work for flights to MYR, since Direct Air was pretty successful on that route.
Massport is trying to focus on the major carriers right now, primarily B6, along with DL, UA, and AA.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (3 months 4 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
Your answer is no based on the article you included..
"Asked about JetBlue's plans for Worcester, spokeswoman Tamara Young said in a statement: “Worcester is JetBlue's kind of town — but we won't even be in a position to consider service until 2014.”
2014 could easily mean November/December 2014... which seems more likely in my book.
As far as other majors, I think at BEST....BEST you are looking at the following in the 5-10 year timeframe:
US 4x DH8 to PHL
UA 3x DH2 to EWR
DL 3x CRJ to DTW
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 hours ago) and read 1865 times:
Quoting cessna53996 (Reply 16): I saw another article, not about ORH, that stated that B6 is moving up delivery of 4 E190's to this year. This could easily bode well for ORH.
I think anyone would be foolish to believe that B6 would start ORH because they want to. If/when they do it, it will be because they pretty much have to as result of dealings/favors for Massport. ALB, ISP, MHT, Florida to from BTV/PWM, expanded BDL/PVD all make sense before ORH.
When B6 starts ORH it is because their favor is due not because extra aircraft are available.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (3 months 1 hour ago) and read 1732 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 1): If so.... would this not be 4 airports in the Boston area with scheduled commercial airline service, along with BOS, PVD and MHT?
To call ORH, PVD, MHT, Boston airport is a little disingenuous. PVD and MHT are not even in Massachusetts, let alone Boston. Yes, there is some overlap at the periphery of eachother's respective catchment areas but at the core each has it's own catchment area.
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 6): The big issue is the lack of highway access. I don't know why the street signs from Route 146 point traffic up I-290 to Route 122 when Cambridge Street from the end of the freeway is quicker, then up Main and Goddard. But there is the #19 bus from Union Station and maybe Massport will offer a shuttle there.
The difference is .2 miles. Hardly relevant How many traffic lights does each route have?
At the end of the day, I would imagine that B6 has a bigger market in MHT than at ORH but is Massport of giving away free money, why not?
NASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 14): Didnt know UA Express had beavers...
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 15): Thats the term/code UA uses, not me!
Indeed; checking flightstats.com, Commutair's Dash 8's are coded DH2 for the -200, and DH3 for the -300. Jazz does the same thing, as does Horizon (DH4). Piedmont used to, but now it seems they're all coded DH8.
usctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
I would love to see an E-190 quick hop from MHT to JFK on B6 and maybe add MCO, or FLL to challenge WN. Also, what are the chances BDL gets west coast service on B6, maybe LGB, LAX or OAK?
bos2laf From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1426 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18): but is Massport of giving away free money, why not?
It wouldn't be due to incentives. As several posters here have said, it's most likely a favor to Massport. "You throw us a bone with Terminal C, and we'll throw you a bone at ORH."
jerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
Quoting cessna53996 (Reply 11): To my knowledge F9 only operates out of TTN 3-4 times per week, so that probably would not work because Massport only wants carriers at ORH that will operate daily flights
Not saying anything as far as if F9 should consider ORH but F9 will offer 6X Weekly (except Sat) service to RDU and MDW from TTN starting April 8th.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22709 posts, RR: 88 Reply 25, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting boslax (Reply 9): Allegiant served ORH-SFB from December 2005 - August 2006. Load factors averaged 78%. When Allegiant abruptly left Worcester, the former Mayor of Worcester, and now Lieutenant Governor, Tim Murray, blasted Allegiant CEO Maurice Gallagher saying " This is not the type of guy we want to do business with, this is an example of the charlatans that exist in the corporate world."
In past times, Massport have not always been exactly 'gentlemen' in their dealings. Maybe they've changed.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
The elephant in the living room is that JetBlue wouldn't go to Worcester unless they could extract a pound of flesh from Massport to do so: "If I do X you need to do Y." Boston is the prize and Worcester is just a pawn.
Not that there's any lack of it now, but if B6 goes to Worcester and not Manchester the management at MHT will feel the heat. You can say that MHT is 'too close to Boston' all you want, but it's no closer to Boston now than it was in the mid-2000s when UA was flying and filling 757s there. I know...I was on them regularly.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18): The difference is .2 miles. Hardly relevant How many traffic lights does each route have?
I haven't been up to Worcester in a while, I don't know about Route 122, but the route I mentioned has about eight lights and avoids Downtown as well as any colleges.
When I was living up there, shortly after I had moved up, my mom and grandmother came up to see me and I gave them a tour of where I rode my bike the day before. I took them down the hill on Airport Street, and my mom said, "You rode down THAT?" It's probably not the best hill to be driving down in the winter.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18): To call ORH, PVD, MHT, Boston airport is a little disingenuous. PVD and MHT are not even in Massachusetts, let alone Boston. Yes, there is some overlap at the periphery of eachother's respective catchment areas but at the core each has it's own catchment area.
The problem with Worcester is that it doesn't have the economic pull that Providence, Manchester, or Springfield/Hartford have. I have lived less than an hour from Worcester my whole life and so far the only trip I have made up there that had nothing to do with Clark University (where I looked at going for my undergrad and later got my master's degree) was a trip to the Higgins Armory when I was maybe seven years old. It doesn't even have a shopping center the way Providence has Providence Place or Manchester has the Mall of New Hampshire.
I do think that Worcester could support some service, but it has to do some advertising outside of the Worcester area.
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1171 times:
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 27): I do think that Worcester could support some service, but it has to do some advertising outside of the Worcester area.
Or, if Massport does it for them. This is one of those, "You Won't Even Have to Lift a Finger" proposals floated by Massport to help make THEIR white elephant pay for itself. JetBlue has reached Southwest-like clout, so they can extract pounds of flesh from communities feverishly trying to connect themselves to other places.
And if JetBlue DOES go to Worcester, it will represent the FIRST time they will be seen to have made a misstep. Imagine the caterwauling and laughing that would occur if JetBlue announced Branson, MO. Same sort of deal.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 30, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 26): The elephant in the living room is that JetBlue wouldn't go to Worcester unless they could extract a pound of flesh from Massport to do so: "If I do X you need to do Y." Boston is the prize and Worcester is just a pawn.
I'm not seeing it.
Quoting bos2laf (Reply 23): It wouldn't be due to incentives. As several posters here have said, it's most likely a favor to Massport. "You throw us a bone with Terminal C, and we'll throw you a bone at ORH."
What kind of bone? B6 already has everything they need at BOS. They have terminal C all to themselves and Massport is already commited to building the airside connector between C and E which is not tied to B6 but rather it's the airport's own plans to link all terminals post security. What else could B6 need at BOS that would justify losing fistfulls of money in ORH? Unless Massport is giving them financial guarantees, I don't see B6 starting service to ORH.
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2645 posts, RR: 5 Reply 31, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 28): And if JetBlue DOES go to Worcester, it will represent the FIRST time they will be seen to have made a misstep. Imagine the caterwauling and laughing that would occur if JetBlue announced Branson, MO. Same sort of deal.
B6 does politics well. The reason BUF, SYR, ROC, and BTV are served with consistent frequency was a deal for 75 slot exemptions with Chuck Schumer and his counterpart from Vermont.
All seem to be profitable.
Then came SWF, another favor for Chuck...and that likely isnt profitable. Then he came calling with ISP (which given WNs pulldown, is likely a messy market) and B6 balked.
I do not think you will see B6 at ORH.
I think you will see continued expansion out of BDL and PVD until they are both linked with all cities in FL (Sans JAX) and SJU. Then you may see ISP enter the picture.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 32, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 963 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 30): What kind of bone? B6 already has everything they need at BOS. They have terminal C all to themselves and Massport is already commited to building the airside connector between C and E which is not tied to B6 but rather it's the airport's own plans to link all terminals post security. What else could B6 need at BOS that would justify losing fistfulls of money in ORH?
They may want WN's Terminal E gates. They may want VX's gates in Terminal B if a post-security connector is to be built between B & C. Maybe they'd want an expansion of Terminal E in 5 years if they plan to launch transatlantic service at some point. Perhaps they were trying to curry favor with the former mayor of Worcester who looked like he had the inside track to be the next governor until his political future became a lot more cloudy.
Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 28): This is one of those, "You Won't Even Have to Lift a Finger" proposals floated by Massport to help make THEIR white elephant pay for itself.
Well, to be perfectly honest, ORH is really the City of Worcester's white elephant that Massport bailed them out of.
Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 19): If that airport was on the other side of the city facing Boston it would have so much more potential.
It doesn't even have to be on the East side of the city. It just has to have adequate highway access. Driving a circuitous 5-mile route on Worcester city streets with 30 mph limits and plenty of traffic lights just won't cut it. PVD and MHT both have excellent highway access.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 33, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 884 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 32):
They may want WN's Terminal E gates. They may want VX's gates in Terminal B if a post-security connector is to be built between B & C.
They are getting 10? gates next year when UA leaves terminal C, plus they can have access to any non-WN gates in terminal E because they are all common use gates. Terminal E is only busy in the evenings. They will have as many gates at BOS as they have today at JFK. That's more gates than they'll ever need for a very long time.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 32): Maybe they'd want an expansion of Terminal E in 5 years if they plan to launch transatlantic service at some point.
They can do that today if they want to. No reason to expand terminal E unless there's a significant increase in TATL frequencies which I doubt. AA is droping their TATL routes as we know it.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 32): It doesn't even have to be on the East side of the city. It just has to have adequate highway access. Driving a circuitous 5-mile route on Worcester city streets with 30 mph limits and plenty of traffic lights just won't cut it. PVD and MHT both have excellent highway access.
It kinda has to be to the East because that's where most people live and work. I just don't see where it could be built build given that ORH is surounded by residential neighborhoods and conservation land.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 34, posted (2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 846 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 33): They are getting 10? gates next year when UA leaves terminal C, plus they can have access to any non-WN gates in terminal E because they are all common use gates. Terminal E is only busy in the evenings. They will have as many gates at BOS as they have today at JFK. That's more gates than they'll ever need for a very long time.
I believe they're only getting six or seven as they already have use of a few of UA's gates in C. Their domestic operation at BOS is roughly 80% the size of their domestic operation at JFK, so it's not entirely far-fetched to think that BOS could outgrow JFK for them. IMO the DL hub at LGA poses significant challenges to JetBlue's domestic operation from JFK outside of Florida and beyond-perimeter. The WN gates in E would be attractive because they are closer and they're not common-use. And I don't think ANYONE would have thought ten years ago that B6 would become the largest carrier at BOS.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 33): They can do that today if they want to. No reason to expand terminal E unless there's a significant increase in TATL frequencies which I doubt. AA is droping their TATL routes as we know it.
AA is dropping their BOS-LHR & seasonal BOS-CDG, but those flights only arrived at E -- and BA is adding one BOS-LHR flight to backfill. If B6 were to hypothetically want to add LON/CDG/FRA from BOS at the normal transatlantic peak hours, there probably wouldn't be room for them. In that hypothetical situation, it helps to have Massport in their back pocket.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 33): It kinda has to be to the East because that's where most people live and work.
The airport's current location would be fine -- if there were a freeway connector to I-290/I-190/Rte. 146.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 734 times:
Quoting flyby519 (Reply 35): Is there a direct bus service between the Worcester commuter rail station and the ORH airport? That might help spur traffic from areas east of ORH.
The WRTA is building a new bus hub at the commuter rail station to open later this year. Currently, the #19 bus goes from City Hall to the airport, so when the bus hub is built, there should be a bus from the train station to the airport. Union Station is also the intercity bus terminal for Worcester as well.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 38): That is part of what I think Massport is trying to get out of this. They want leverage to push through a highway connector to the airport. Unfortunately the airport is in a very inaccessible place. People have been consistently calling for easy highway access to the airport, but it has always meet with very strong resistance from that part of the city.
Yeah, unfortunately, there is no easy way to build a highway. The end of Goddard Memorial Drive is almost two miles from I-290, too far for a tunnel.
cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 34):
The airport's current location would be fine -- if there were a freeway connector to I-290/I-190/Rte. 146.
That is part of what I think Massport is trying to get out of this. They want leverage to push through a highway connector to the airport. Unfortunately the airport is in a very inaccessible place. People have been consistently calling for easy highway access to the airport, but it has always meet with very strong resistance from that part of the city. On paper it makes so much sense - there is such a strong pull for business flyers from the 495 belt, but when airlines try to start service, all the passengers find it far easier to drive the extra half hour and get to an airport that offers a full weeks schedule and multiple flight options. As for leisure travelers, they still have to drive to Worcester - just as easy to head east on the Pike to Logan or south on 146 to TF Green.
This will be the 4th time they tried a Florida only service. There is just not enough traffic there. They would be much, much better served by a hub connection where you could get to multiple points. Particularly a NYC connection to capture the day business travelers and weekend flyers.
As for what JetBlue gets out of this? I think that putting an effort into starting service at ORH was probably a requirement from their past dealings. And while they are the big guy at BOS, they know they are not the only player in the game there, and they need to keep on Massport's good side. And if B6 is really interested in widebody jets, maybe they want to transitions some of their BOS flights to international flights and have airports like ORH and PVD bear the load of the low yield leisure markets.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 39, posted (2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 661 times:
Quoting ScottB (Reply 34): I believe they're only getting six or seven as they already have use of a few of UA's gates in C. Their domestic operation at BOS is roughly 80% the size of their domestic operation at JFK, so it's not entirely far-fetched to think that BOS could outgrow JFK for them. IMO the DL hub at LGA poses significant challenges to JetBlue's domestic operation from JFK outside of Florida and beyond-perimeter. The WN gates in E would be attractive because they are closer and they're not common-use. And I don't think ANYONE would have thought ten years ago that B6 would become the largest carrier at BOS.
All valid points but I also think that B6 can squeeze far more out of the gates at BOS because BOS is not a hub so therefore their operations are not limited to connecting banks like they are at JFK. In addition, they can reconfigure terminal C and add more gates because the biggest plane they will ever operate from there in the foreseable future will be an A321.
I agree that the WN gates would be attractive to B6 but no amount of goodwill to Massport will get WN to move out of there until WN wants to move. It will all depend on how much WN grows at BOS because what they have right now is all they will ever get at terminal E.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6358 posts, RR: 34 Reply 40, posted (2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 476 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 39): they can reconfigure terminal C and add more gates because the biggest plane they will ever operate from there in the foreseable future will be an A321.
I'm don't believe they can add any gates to Terminal C given the T-shaped design of the piers. The neck of each pier will accommodate two aircraft on each side. The gates on the heads of the piers were generally sized for 757's for both DL & UA, and the 757's wingspan is only about 13' larger than the A32X's. Across six or seven gates on each pier's head, there's not enough space to be gained for an additional gate, and creating several E190-only gates seems like a bad idea for operational flexibility.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 39): I agree that the WN gates would be attractive to B6 but no amount of goodwill to Massport will get WN to move out of there until WN wants to move. It will all depend on how much WN grows at BOS because what they have right now is all they will ever get at terminal E.
Clearly Massport has some ability to pressure the carriers as the combined UA operation could have fit in the UA pier of Terminal C; the gates B6 uses on that pier are under subleases from UA. They've managed to get UA to agree to a split operation for an extended period of time while the expansion of Terminal B is built.
Long-term, B6 almost certainly would like to have Massport push WN over to Terminal A as that would bottle them up even more effectively than being at Terminal E; as you mentioned, most of Terminal E is empty outside of the evening transatlantic rush and WN could use (and has used) other gates in E when they're not in use for international operations.
Quoting cloudboy (Reply 38): On paper it makes so much sense - there is such a strong pull for business flyers from the 495 belt, but when airlines try to start service, all the passengers find it far easier to drive the extra half hour and get to an airport that offers a full weeks schedule and multiple flight options.
I agree completely on the limited flight schedule; once- or sub-daily service just doesn't work for business travelers unless there's no nearby option. Why would a business traveler take an ORH-ORD/MDW flight at an inconvenient time when BOS-ORD/MDW is almost hourly among the various carriers flying? But I'd also argue that business along the 495 corridor has seen a bit of a decline over the past 20 years what with the reduction in the former DEC operations by its corporate successors.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 15 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22709 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31116 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
