Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates CEO: Boston Needs Bigger Plane  
User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23031 times:

Good article in today's Boston Herald covering yesterday's inaugural from Dubai.

http://bostonherald.com/business/bus.../03/boston_dubai_bookings_take_off

Of note is the bullishness displayed by CEO Tim Clark:


“For the life of me, I can’t see why Boston wouldn’t take a double-daily frequency or 380s in the air,” Clark said. “On the basis of the forward bookings, the route would take it.”

Now I suppose every inaugural address has this sort of 'hyperbole,' but I also suppose Emirates sees the advance bookings for Boston-Dubai and knows that a -300ER is needed, and perhaps beyond that...two of them each day. If there's any 'hyperbole,' it's the comment about the A380. That, I think, is far-fetched. Mostly because Boston hasn't prepared itself for handling the 'Super' (the recent Singapore A380 diversion last week notwithstanding).

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10667 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 23041 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Thread starter):
Mostly because Boston hasn't prepared itself for handling the 'Super' (the recent Singapore A380 diversion last week notwithstanding).

Airports are usually willing to make the necessary adjustments.

Clark also added he can see Boston A380 service within the year.

http://twitter.com/PeterHoweNECN/status/443118028473909248



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 22946 times:

Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do. I see the -300 showing up very quickly, and wouldn't be surprised to have double daily at some point - a morning departure would work well. If the next few weeks are any indication this will happen soon - all flights this week are overbooked.

Massport is also courting a link to MXP, so I'm sure EK would look at this as an option similar to the JFK run.


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 22826 times:

I do believe Emirates uses the -200LR as a 'route starter' before a switch to something bigger happens. Look at the relative fleet sizes for the -200LR (ten frames) and the -300ER (a gazillion).

User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 22499 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
all flights this week are overbooked

Wow...and only 2 unsold yesterday. If the flights are already overbooked in some cases, doesn't the -300ER have to show up on those days that it is?


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 22425 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do. I see the -300 showing up very quickly, and wouldn't be surprised to have double daily at some point - a morning departure would work well. If the next few weeks are any indication this will happen soon - all flights this week are overbooked.

Let's not forget that this is Spring Break season for the more than 100 colleges in the area and that EK had some outstanding introductory fares. Then comes Summer which is equally busy. So this year, a 77W maybe but next Winter is when we'll know for sure what this market looks like, especially with TK coming here too.


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 22333 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 4):
Wow...and only 2 unsold yesterday. If the flights are already overbooked in some cases, doesn't the -300ER have to show up on those days that it is?

Amazing prospects ... TK management must be pulling their hair for not starting sooner!

If bookings are consistently strong ... EK will probably upgauge even before TK arrives!!


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 22198 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 6):
Amazing prospects ... TK management must be pulling their hair for not starting sooner!

They sort of serve different markets. EK is all about India. TK only serves 2 destinations in India. DXB is too far East even to be a Middle East hub. IST serves not only the ME but Europe too. Until TK can get more destinations and frequencies to India the 2 airlines won't overlap too much. For example, I think Russia and Israel are going to be 2 huge markets for TK from Boston.


User currently offlinebobdino From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 21982 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do.

Why?


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 21803 times:

VINI VIDI VICI.

The same old Emirates story told over and over again. And they are only just starting!

(still sells loads of 787's ans 350's as other airlines downsize as a result  


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21293 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
They sort of serve different markets. EK is all about India. TK only serves 2 destinations in India. DXB is too far East even to be a Middle East hub. IST serves not only the ME but Europe too. Until TK can get more destinations and frequencies to India the 2 airlines won't overlap too much. For example, I think Russia and Israel are going to be 2 huge markets for TK from Boston.

You are right - we actually discussed this before here. But I forgot in the excitement of the moment! 

TK's catchment is indeed a lot different. Russia, Israel, Balkans, Central Asia, Levant, Northern Africa ... all these new markets will be covered by them before they compete with EK for Gulf, Iran/Iraq, and India.

For the Subcontinent, EK is definitely ahead with so many secondary cities and frequencies. For example, EK flies THRICE DAILY to DAC ... two families I know (10 people altogether) are flying BOS-DXB-DAC in a few weeks.

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do.

I had the same question. Massport is already working on making two gates compatible with the A380. The runway/taxiway width requirements are manageable if I understood correctly from the other thread. Why is Logan "very far from being able to" handle scheduled A380 service? Maybe a year or two ... or do you think more?

Quoting parapente (Reply 9):

VINI VIDI VICI.

The same old Emirates story told over and over again. And they are only just starting!

Indeed! It is hard to decipher whether demand brings EK, or EK brings demand?!! 

But either way, looks like this route has taken off better than expected already. Either they upgauge soon to a 77W or maybe throw in a second frequency (via MXP)


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17328 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21115 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Thread starter):
“On the basis of the forward bookings, the route would take it.”

Sure. And the yields? BOSBOM is running around $1000 all in, or about 5.7 cents/mile



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4748 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21055 times:

BOS is better off going double daily B777s rather than a daily A380 only. With good feed available via B6 code share out of BOS, it will be good for EK especially considering that its prime ISC arrival flight wave does not see a bottle neck situation at 7am DXB time hence why the double daily option with the second flight departing DXB at 0200-0300 is a more viable move IMO !

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6707 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 20493 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 10):
Why is Logan "very far from being able to" handle scheduled A380 service? Maybe a year or two ... or do you think more?

The airport, particularly its terminals, wasn't designed to accommodate aircraft of that size, and parking the aircraft at Terminal E would block an adjacent gate. This is problematic at a terminal which is already full at peak hours. Taxiway spacing is also a significant issue. There's really very little room to fix these problems, either -- the airport is on a limited piece of real estate.


User currently offlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 20357 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 12):

  

Better for connections to SIN, Africa and the niche destination MLE for us scuba divers as well.


User currently offlinestratacruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19900 times:

Quoting bobdino (Reply 8):
Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do.

Why?

Because diverted passengers often don't disembark and luggage isn't off-loaded. Even if passengers to disembark, they'll tolerate a single jetway exit, whereas they won't be as likely to in regular service.


User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19881 times:

One thing I would like to take the chance and ask, why is EK's total airfare including a smaller proportion of 'fees and taxes' in a typical air ticket? For example, the total costs for a flight from UK to Asia will be similar on EK and LH, however, the base fare will be lower in LH than EK while the 'taxes and fees' are higher in LH, any reason why?


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19792 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 10):
Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do.

I had the same question. Massport is already working on making two gates compatible with the A380. The runway/taxiway width requirements are manageable if I understood correctly from the other thread. Why is Logan "very far from being able to" handle scheduled A380 service? Maybe a year or two ... or do you think more?
Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
The airport, particularly its terminals, wasn't designed to accommodate aircraft of that size, and parking the aircraft at Terminal E would block an adjacent gate. This is problematic at a terminal which is already full at peak hours. Taxiway spacing is also a significant issue. There's really very little room to fix these problems, either -- the airport is on a limited piece of real estate.
Quoting bobdino (Reply 8):

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Handling the various A380 diversions which have frequented BOS are not nearly the same as handling scheduled A380 service, which the airport is very far from being able to do.

Why?

Yes, however this is not the only issue. Even with the new terminal extension which will have 2 A380 capable gates, the runway and taxiway infrastructure will need some serious attention prior to scheduled A380 service, and real estate is already at a premium. As it stands right now, you can park an A380 at gate 8A (and you lose 8B) or you can park on Gate 5 and lose 6 and 4 - this is where SQ has parked the past 2 diversions. IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

EK is also not the only one interested in the A380 - AF and LH (and I'm sure BA would follow) would all currently love to operate an A380 to BOS if the capability was there.


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1010 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19599 times:

there is going to be a day when Emirates is the largest aircraft operator at most US airports - and I think that Emirates will be flying to a LOT more US destinations. STL, PIT, DEN, LAS, SAN, PDX, ATL, MCO are just a few that WILL open once the smaller aircraft come online. I wouldn't be surprised if EK flies to at least 20 US destinations in 5 years. They have an amazing product (despite the horrid 777 coach seating) and do well at managing their fares and inventory.


xx
User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 721 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18385 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 17):
Yes, however this is not the only issue. Even with the new terminal extension which will have 2 A380 capable gates, the runway and taxiway infrastructure will need some serious attention prior to scheduled A380 service, and real estate is already at a premium. As it stands right now, you can park an A380 at gate 8A (and you lose 8B) or you can park on Gate 5 and lose 6 and 4 - this is where SQ has parked the past 2 diversions. IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

Thanks for explaining! Does look difficult indeed for scheduled A380 service at Terminal E...

Speaking for myself, I am not a fan of the Manatees ... I would rather take double daily 777s!


User currently offlinetexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17569 times:

I'm jealous. DFW started with a 772LR and it has stayed that way for more than a year....no switch to a 77W anytime soon.
What the....



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineana787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17352 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 18):
there is going to be a day when Emirates is the largest aircraft operator at most US airports - and I think that Emirates will be flying to a LOT more US destinations. STL, PIT, DEN, LAS, SAN, PDX, ATL, MCO are just a few that WILL open once the smaller aircraft come online. I wouldn't be surprised if EK flies to at least 20 US destinations in 5 years. They have an amazing product (despite the horrid 777 coach seating) and do well at managing their fares and inventory.

I think all those are possible...except for STL and PIT.

DEN
LAS
SAN
PDX
ATL
PHX
MSP
MCO
MIA


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 16774 times:

Quoting texdravid (Reply 20):
I'm jealous. DFW started with a 772LR and it has stayed that way for more than a year....no switch to a 77W anytime soon.
What the....

I wouldn't be jealous of us yet...we're only a day in and the plane today was again a 777-200LR. 

But the CEO is the guy signing the checks and making these big decisions. I guess he knows that being a 'first mover' into Boston (besting Turkish by several months even though Turkish announced first) is going to be HUGE for them.

Qatar seems likely, ETIHAD...who the heck knows. And Saudi, no one even mentions them.

By the way, the captain today (just landed) was as 'American' as yesterday's was. Both sounded as though they were from Albany, New York or something. I guess with all that metal, Emirates needs crews from wherever they can find them.


User currently offlinetlecam From United States of America, joined exactly 1 years ago today! , 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 16650 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 17):
Yes, however this is not the only issue. Even with the new terminal extension which will have 2 A380 capable gates, the runway and taxiway infrastructure will need some serious attention prior to scheduled A380 service, and real estate is already at a premium. As it stands right now, you can park an A380 at gate 8A (and you lose 8B) or you can park on Gate 5 and lose 6 and 4 - this is where SQ has parked the past 2 diversions. IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

EK is also not the only one interested in the A380 - AF and LH (and I'm sure BA would follow) would all currently love to operate an A380 to BOS if the capability was there.

Space is going to continue to be an issue. Physically, the only place to expand is to where the hangars are now. That would have all sorts of challenges, not the least of which is that those hangars presumably have uses, even with the AA and DL shrink over the years. It does not appear that there is room for another "satellite' terminal, a la Delta.

I would venture to guess that Massport is going to have to look to moving some of the alliance departures (Virgin, AF, Alitalia) over to a different terminal. (A for skyteam). However, while A is relatively under-used now, there are gate restrictions out at the satellite too. You can see how oversized the Delta LHR and AMS planes are when parked at the A piers. To say nothing of the boarding area.

On a separate note for the Boston locals - the Callahan finally re-opened yesterday - bless all things holy.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5308 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 16548 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 18):
there is going to be a day when Emirates is the largest aircraft operator at most US airports - and I think that Emirates will be flying to a LOT more US destinations. STL, PIT, DEN, LAS, SAN, PDX, ATL, MCO are just a few that WILL open once the smaller aircraft come online. I wouldn't be surprised if EK flies to at least 20 US destinations in 5 years.

We'll see. Every DXB-US route is an ultra-long-haul route, with costs to match. I don't think they'll be able to compete with US and Euro carriers' fares out of the smaller destinations.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6707 posts, RR: 32
Reply 25, posted (4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16707 times:

Quoting tlecam (Reply 23):
On a separate note for the Boston locals - the Callahan finally re-opened yesterday - bless all things holy.

And on another note, Hell froze over with a Boston construction project having been completed early.

Quoting tlecam (Reply 23):
Physically, the only place to expand is to where the hangars are now. That would have all sorts of challenges, not the least of which is that those hangars presumably have uses, even with the AA and DL shrink over the years.

There is some flexibility on that, in that the new economy parking garage could be taken down and replaced with new hangars -- it would just be expensive. UA gave up their BOS hangar a while back and DL has it now, but B6 now has a BOS hangar (is it the old DL hangar?) And there is a need to retain some aircraft parking positions away from the terminals.

Quoting tlecam (Reply 23):
It does not appear that there is room for another "satellite' terminal, a la Delta.

There's probably *space* to rebuild Terminal E with a satellite concourse in the current location (this would add parking positions on the other side of the concourse) and the landside in the current parking lot, but it would likely be very expensive and only add a few gates.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 15246 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
The airport, particularly its terminals, wasn't designed to accommodate aircraft of that size, and parking the aircraft at Terminal E would block an adjacent gate. This is problematic at a terminal which is already full at peak hours. Taxiway spacing is also a significant issue. There's really very little room to fix these problems, either -- the airport is on a limited piece of real estate.

True but "very limited" is not the same as non-existent. It will happen. in another thread someone posted that Massport has already started working on it but I haven't been able to find any evidence online. Nevertheless, it's a matter of when, not if. BOS will be able to handle the 748/A380/777X within a short few years, possibly sooner.

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 17):
IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

There's no IF or MAYBE. That is exactly the time that EK will operate once the DXB runway work is complete. Look at JFK and IAD as an example.

Quoting tlecam (Reply 23):
Space is going to continue to be an issue. Physically, the only place to expand is to where the hangars are now.

That is exactly where the new terminal E expansion is going to be.

[Edited 2014-03-11 14:19:03]

User currently offlinecessna53996 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14381 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 26):
in another thread someone posted that Massport has already started working on it but I haven't been able to find any evidence online.
Could you post a link to that thread?

It's truly amazing the amount of international expansion out of Logan during recent years. Just an idea, but would it be possible to move cargo ops to BED or another area airport in order to turn the South Cargo ramp into a new terminal?



Feeling a little blue in ORH, JetBlue.
User currently offlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9293 posts, RR: 25
Reply 28, posted (4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14195 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 22):
But the CEO is the guy signing the checks and making these big decisions

Small correction - Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum is the ceo and chairman of Emirates Group ... Tim Clark is the President of The Emirates Group.

The Sheik holds the checkbook and ultimately gives approval to the shots that are called, and Clark is tasked with "making it happen."



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineflyby519 From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 13905 times:

Quoting cessna53996 (Reply 27):
It's truly amazing the amount of international expansion out of Logan during recent years. Just an idea, but would it be possible to move cargo ops to BED or another area airport in order to turn the South Cargo ramp into a new terminal?

That would be great, but i can already hear the NIMBYs screaming



These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 13487 times:

Quoting cessna53996 (Reply 27):
Could you post a link to that thread?
BOS Terminal E Renovation (by iyerhari Mar 4 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting cessna53996 (Reply 27):
It's truly amazing the amount of international expansion out of Logan during recent years. Just an idea, but would it be possible to move cargo ops to BED or another area airport in order to turn the South Cargo ramp into a new terminal?

Nope. If you're refering to FedEx and UPS, those guys fly to/from BOS because of its proximity to their main market which is the City of Boston. There's also a lot of cargo being shipped via regular airlines. Separating the two is just not very viable.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 13054 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 18):

there is going to be a day when Emirates is the largest aircraft operator at most US airports - and I think that Emirates will be flying to a LOT more US destinations. STL, PIT, DEN, LAS, SAN, PDX, ATL, MCO are just a few that WILL open once the smaller aircraft come online. I wouldn't be surprised if EK flies to at least 20 US destinations in 5 years.

STL, PIT, and PDX are beyond long shots. Add DEN, MIA and LAS. I can see 10 destinations in 5 years but I can't see 20. EK has their aircraft order book pretty well set for the next five years and although they are due to receive a lot of aircraft they are also replacing a significant number of aircraft and every destination in the US that they add requires more than two aircraft per daily route because of the route length. So even if they could find 20 cities to add (I don't think they can), they don't have enough aircraft to do it.

When will BOS be A380 compliant?

tortugamon


User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12157 times:

People on this forum said EK at ORD was a pipe dream, now we are seeing STL,PIT, PDX. Why does this forum hate ORD so much?

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12158 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
When will BOS be A380 compliant?

That's all relative   BOS will never be fully a Group VI compliant airport because of cost and space constraints. However I expect it to make enough improvements to get an exception from the FAA to have regular A380 operations. When that will happen is not yet in the public domain. Note that BOS is already approved for regular 748 operations:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/nla_mos/


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11690 times:

I plugged in some dates and it appears to be $100+ cheaper to buy a ticket to DXB from BOS through B6 then it is through EK itself. Anyone know the reasoning there or is it a hiccup? I thought maybe it had to do with a Reward Miles thing but it is strange.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 32):
Why does this forum hate ORD so much?

EK has already announced ORD so I was referring to new EK destinations

http://worldairlinenews.com/2014/02/...hicago-ohare-starting-on-august-5/

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
However I expect it to make enough improvements to get an exception from the FAA to have regular A380 operations. When that will happen is not yet in the public domain.

Sir Tim Clark sounded pretty optimistic about A380 service this year though. Do we think they can get that exception that quickly? I don't think the terminal E improvements will be done for another 1.5 years yet.

tortugamon


User currently offlineMiami From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 888 posts, RR: 42
Reply 35, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11498 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 32):

Welcome to the party...   



Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3204 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10826 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 17):
IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

What about remote stands? Yes it's hardly ideal, but in some parts of the world its common for widebody flights.
The old hong kong airport it was normal, it happens all the time in the ME hubs including DXB, and even in FRA it's not out of the question. So this would be a relatively cheap way to accommodate the A380 on a regular basis. As for the taxi ways, without seeing them its hard to comment but for my own home airport when it was upgraded for regular A380 opeartions (EK sends it in a few times a day now here in BNE/DXB BNE/AKLBNE ) it was mostly just sealing the edges of taxi ways to accommodate for jetblast further out from engines one and 4. This didn't need to be load bearing the existing runway can handle the 747 no problem, it was just the greater wingspan and further distance from engines 1 and 4 meant jet blast further out and we didn't want the grass being ripped up all the time. BOS doesn't have one spot they could use as a remote stand and bus the PAX?


User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
They sort of serve different markets. EK is all about India. TK only serves 2 destinations in India. DXB is too far East even to be a Middle East hub. IST serves not only the ME but Europe too. Until TK can get more destinations and frequencies to India the 2 airlines won't overlap too much. For example, I think Russia and Israel are going to be 2 huge markets for TK from Boston.

   Does TK do many European transfers to the US? I know it's out of the way for some routes, but I'm sure there are some who do fly via IST.

Does it appear EK's new BOS service will also have a high premium demand?


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10157 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31):
I can see 10 destinations in 5 years but I can't see 20.

Well they will already be serving 9 when ORD comes online. I can easily see them have 20 US destinations in 5 years. Obviously they will go for the few first tier cities remaining such as MIA, ATL, DTW, etc but then I can see them consider a few healthy second tier cities such as MSP, RDU, etc.



FLYi
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 39, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9925 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 38):
I can easily see them have 20 US destinations in 5 years.

Alright lets name 11 more cities. I will give you ATL, MCO, MIA, DTW, LAS, and DEN (even though I think a couple of these are a stretch). I have a hard time with five more on top of that in five years. If you call EWR a different city I can get within 4 of 20 destinations but even at that point its a stretch. I have a hard time with SAN, RDU, PIT, STL, PDX and others that have been mentioned.

I think the strategy will be to launch more frequencies to existing cities. These second tier cities can get to the ~15 EK destinations in ~1 hour long flight. SAN (LAX), RDU (IAD), PIT (ORD/JFK), STL(ORD), PDX(SEA)

By no means is 20 destinations 'easy' in my opinion.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9176 posts, RR: 18
Reply 40, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 32):
People on this forum said EK at ORD was a pipe dream, now we are seeing STL,PIT, PDX. Why does this forum hate ORD so much?

If PIT is ever added, I think it will be among the last. How many people per day travel to DXB or anywhere else in the middle east? Is this traffic even climbing? I guess it probably is given the improving economy and whatnot, but is it enough to warrant any int'l service to this part of the world?

I'm surprised PHL wasn't mentioned, although they're gaining 77W service on QR to Doha, Qatar.



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9672 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 39):
Alright lets name 11 more cities. I will give you ATL, MCO, MIA, DTW, LAS, and DEN (even though I think a couple of these are a stretch). I have a hard time with five more on top of that in five years. If you call EWR a different city I can get within 4 of 20 destinations but even at that point its a stretch. I have a hard time with SAN, RDU, PIT, STL, PDX and others that have been mentioned.

I think a lot of people would also have had a hard time with BA doing LHR-AUS the day before they announced it. If there is one thing I have learned about Emirates over the past decade is to not second guess or doubt their growth plans.



FLYi
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 42, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9646 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 18):
there is going to be a day when Emirates is the largest aircraft operator at most US airports

I can't see that ever happening. Most traffic at U.S. airports is domestic which EK can't participate in. And all their international flights have to serve DXB (or other UAE airports). Although they have 5th freedom rights as part of the U.S.-UAE open skies agreement, they don't have open skies with all European countries, so where they can exercise 5th freedom rights is limited.

And since any flights that do use 5th freedom rights have to continue to/from DXB, EK will never be able to compete with all the carriers operating O&D services in the much larger U.S.-Europe market.

The U.S.-UAE (and Gulf region in general) O&D market is quite small so they're largely dependent on 6th freedom connecting traffic to/from India/South Asia and a few points in Southeast Asia where it's not that much further (at least from the East Coast) via DXB than via the Pacific. And while they carry a reasonable number of passengers via DXB to/from Africa, that's usually significantly further than other routings, and U.S.-Africa is also a tiny market compared to Europe and other markets where EK will never be more than a very minor player.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5175 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 39):
I will give you ATL, MCO, MIA, DTW, LAS, and DEN (even though I think a couple of these are a stretch). I have a hard time with five more on top of that in five years. If you call EWR a different city I can get within 4 of 20 destinations but even at that point its a stretch

EWR is surely a given. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't their next addition.

I'll add SJC. It could give them a real competitive edge to launch SJC-DXB as opposed to a second SFO-DXB. Maybe 1xA380 to SFO and 1x77L/W to SJC eventually ... by which I'm talking 5 years

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
If there is one thing I have learned about Emirates over the past decade is to not second guess or doubt their growth plans.

  

I know it sounds crazy, but I wouldn't rule out AUS a decade from now.

I personally agree that 20 destinations is quite possible, but I'd set the timeframe as 5-10 years rather than 0-5.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 44, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9137 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
I think a lot of people would also have had a hard time with BA doing LHR-AUS the day before they announced it.

Sure but that route can be done with two aircraft and they are 788s. EK will have to dedicate three aircraft and their smallest will be A359s (and I don't think those will cross the Atlantic all that often). My point has been that I don't think they can do it in five years. Right now they are heading to JFK twice a day, LAX once per day, ORD has not even started yet. Meanwhile they are operating 6 flights to LHR.

I don't see 20 destinations in five years primarily because I think EK can support more frequencies to existing cities that are much more valuable. Nevermind these additional 11 destinations could mean ~30 aircraft and they do have to build up the other side of the hub (Asia) and Europe as well and they are only planning on adding approximately 90 aircraft (net) overall by 2019.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
If there is one thing I have learned about Emirates over the past decade is to not second guess or doubt their growth plans.

No doubt. And if they announce 20 US destinations is the plan by 2019 then I would assume its closer to 25.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 43):
I personally agree that 20 destinations is quite possible, but I'd set the timeframe as 5-10 years rather than 0-5.

I can buy 20 within 10 years. I can see SJC as well. I am surprised that airport hasn't grown more though. It just received its first Asian destination and I would think there are a couple more of those that need to happen as well.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemiaintl From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1017 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8339 times:

How big is the Boston-South Asia market vis-a-vis Miami? I am surprised this flight is doing so well. Who would have known there was such a large Asian population in Boston.

User currently offlineSkippy777 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2001, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7587 times:

Weird they can't even serve warm food onboard the A380 and they want bigger plains ?
They should upgrade the service instead of upgrading plains


User currently offlinewingflex744 From Singapore, joined May 2013, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 2):
Massport is also courting a link to MXP, so I'm sure EK would look at this as an option similar to the JFK run.

That would be just awesome from a MXP perspective, a mini EK hub in Milan sounds like gold after AZ demise...



Don't worry about the world coming to an end today...it's already tomorrow in Australia!
User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6901 times:

Quoting wingflex744 (Reply 47):
That would be just awesome from a MXP perspective, a mini EK hub in Milan sounds like gold after AZ demise...

EK needs 5th freedom flight permissions for each flight operated out of MXP bound to countries other than the UAE. Hard way to build a hub. Also the number of daily flights to DXB would be quite limited for market reasons... I doubt the route (DXB-MXP) could sustain more than 3 or 4 daily flights.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3385 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6756 times:

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 48):
EK needs 5th freedom flight permissions for each flight operated out of MXP bound to countries other than the UAE. Hard way to build a hub. Also the number of daily flights to DXB would be quite limited for market reasons... I doubt the route (DXB-MXP) could sustain more than 3 or 4 daily flights.

Not to mention it looks like EY is going to take a part ownership position of Alitalia which will give them a lot of flexibility in Italy.

tortugamon


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6139 times:

It's an exaggeration, I know..but still





User currently offlineiyerhari From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 45):

Boston or rather New England has a substantial South Asian or rather Indian population along with other Middle East population to cater to the demand. This includes leisure travelers as well as business and certainly the college crowd. I think Emirates was one of the best catch from Boston and it gave me a chuckle when I saw a picture from chrisnh - that's really true. The usual US based airlines kept ignoring Boston by offering the usual hub-to-hub flights - and would give some lessons to the airline route coordinators when they keep checking housefull flights from BOS that has nothing to do with their so-called hubs.


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4083 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5737 times:

Quoting iyerhari (Reply 51):
The usual US based airlines kept ignoring Boston by offering the usual hub-to-hub flights

Indeed. Aside from a token effort by Delta (what else would you call it?), none of the usual suspects...AA, UA, US...care a bit about Boston internationally. The thinking always has been, "Yeah...you get yourself down to JFK, EWR, IAD, PHL...and THEN we'll be happy to talk." This myopic thinking really took hold when our domestic airlines were hemorrhaging money and really had to 'pick their spots.' And that's OK! We know Boston isn't New York. We get that. But Emirates and JAL and Turkish...they recognized something else: That Boston is a big and profitable market unto itself.

Truth be told, I kind of like how BOS is evolving. I'd much rather see Emirates and others carrying people into and out of Logan than a bunch of tired UA, AA, and US 757s....which is all we'd get.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4852 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Emirates launched its daily, non-stop service between Dubai and Boston yesterday. Boston becomes the airline’s eighth US destination and the 142nd on its global network which links key tourism and trading destinations across six continents. Here are some photos from the inaugural flight — at Boston Logan International Airport.

http://i58.tinypic.com/wkjk41.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/29ptd3k.jpg
http://i60.tinypic.com/2qio7sw.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/qsjdzs.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/2s8pcg0.jpg
http://i60.tinypic.com/6qkx20.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/1693fab.jpg

Source: www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.49...3741856.158307244279033&type=1

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 37):
Does TK do many European transfers to the US? I know it's out of the way for some routes, but I'm sure there are some who do fly via IST.

Lots, myself and my family included. any destinationation in Eastern or Central Europe is in play via IST, IMO. When they introduced BOS they were selling tickets to just about anywhere in Europe, from BOS, for $700 all in, for the Summer. That is unheard of. We're flying BOS-IST-SZG for $740/pp in July. Everyone else wanted at least $1200/pp to fly into MUC instead. LH wanted $1500 to fly into SZG. When you have a family of 3 or 4 that's a no-brainer and it saves us a 2 hr drive to/from MUC. The beauty of TK is that we can now get to all of these secondary cities that were either not accessible on a 1-stop, or if they were the prices were too high.

[Edited 2014-03-12 05:07:57]

User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 36):

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 17):
IF and a big IF an airline wanted to operat an A380, and agreed to operate between 1000-1500, MAYBE it could be worked in, however I don't think anyone wants that early of a departure utilizing an A380 and this would mean escorting the manatee every day, boarding with only 1 jetbridge, etc...can't work.

What about remote stands? Yes it's hardly ideal, but in some parts of the world its common for widebody flights.
The old hong kong airport it was normal, it happens all the time in the ME hubs including DXB, and even in FRA it's not out of the question. So this would be a relatively cheap way to accommodate the A380 on a regular basis. As for the taxi ways, without seeing them its hard to comment but for my own home airport when it was upgraded for regular A380 opeartions (EK sends it in a few times a day now here in BNE/DXB BNE/AKLBNE ) it was mostly just sealing the edges of taxi ways to accommodate for jetblast further out from engines one and 4. This didn't need to be load bearing the existing runway can handle the 747 no problem, it was just the greater wingspan and further distance from engines 1 and 4 meant jet blast further out and we didn't want the grass being ripped up all the time. BOS doesn't have one spot they could use as a remote stand and bus the PAX?

CBP would never allow a scheduled remote operation in BOS, and balk at the idea even when there is no other option. Using 1 jetbridge for an A380 is tough, I can't imagine a remote operation - BOS is not setup for either. It will be some time before BOS sees a scheduled A380, however saying that I will acknowledge that money talks, and if EK really wants it...it will happen with the proper application of political pressure and $$

Quoting miaintl (Reply 45):
How big is the Boston-South Asia market vis-a-vis Miami? I am surprised this flight is doing so well. Who would have known there was such a large Asian population in Boston.

Look at the colleges...this is where a majority of the traffic comes from to begin with.


User currently offlineiyerhari From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 52):

Chris, completely agree with your thought process, I once flew US Airways from PHL to MAD and honestly it was my worst international experience. Anyways who cares now. BOS has lot more options and I'd like the United, Delta, and AAs to take some lessons at MIT or Harvard by traveling to BOS as refresher courses on how they should weigh their profitability and choose their routes and their so-called hubs. We are still going to be stuck for a while with domestic routes esp. when it comes to Midwest or deep South since B6 doesn't have enough leverage - maybe in the future things will change when the airlines come back from their refresher courses.

EK413 - thank you for sharing the pics.


User currently offlinetlecam From United States of America, joined exactly 1 years ago today! , 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 45):

How big is the Boston-South Asia market vis-a-vis Miami? I am surprised this flight is doing so well. Who would have known there was such a large Asian population in Boston.

It's substantial - the large technology sector in Boston drives a ton of traffic to and from India.

The other huge driver of traffic to/from the ME is the medical industry - not just medical students from the middle east, but patients, and other periphery medical industries.

Quoting chrisnh (Reply 52):
Indeed. Aside from a token effort by Delta (what else would you call it?), none of the usual suspects...AA, UA, US...care a bit about Boston internationally. The thinking always has been, "Yeah...you get yourself down to JFK, EWR, IAD, PHL...and THEN we'll be happy to talk." This myopic thinking really took hold when our domestic airlines were hemorrhaging money and really had to 'pick their spots.' And that's OK! We know Boston isn't New York. We get that. But Emirates and JAL and Turkish...they recognized something else: That Boston is a big and profitable market unto itself.

Truth be told, I kind of like how BOS is evolving. I'd much rather see Emirates and others carrying people into and out of Logan than a bunch of tired UA, AA, and US 757s....which is all we'd get.

Agree 100%. Recently, someone posted the top US markets. The Boston area was the only one in the top 10 that is not a hub for a major US airline. I get why they don't want to establish another hub so close to NYC, but that thinking creates a significant opportunity for foreign carriers to make a lot of money flying these international routes.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 55):
CBP would never allow a scheduled remote operation in BOS, and balk at the idea even when there is no other option. Using 1 jetbridge for an A380 is tough, I can't imagine a remote operation

I personally don't find the terminal and lack of upper deck jet bridge limitations to be an issue simply because EK does not and will not operate an A380 during the typical afternoon rush hour. Not too long ago many airports including LAX were using only 1 jetbridge to service 744's. Some probably still are. That's not any better than using 2 lower deck jetbridges to service an A380. BOS can do that very easily.

As for the passenger holding area, the current schedule has the flight departing around 11PM. Terminal E is a ghost town after 9pm. More importantly, I fully expect this flight to move to a morning/mid-morning operating schedule once the DXB runway work is completed, similar to JL's schedule and EK's schedule at JFK and IAD. At that time terminal E is also a ghost town and there are plenty of available gates. So like I said before, terminal and gate limitations are the least of the problems for an EK A380 at BOS. The bigger problem is airfield limitations of which taxiway widening is probably the biggest issue.


User currently offlinevs11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

Quoting miaintl (Reply 45):
How big is the Boston-South Asia market vis-a-vis Miami? I am surprised this flight is doing so well. Who would have known there was such a large Asian population in Boston.

This flight is way overdue so it should not be a surprise that it is doing so well. In addition to the education and health care industries, Boston is a pretty big asset management center, probably bigger than either education or health care. There are tons of pretty wealthy Middle East investors - private and institutional (SWFs) - whose money is managed in Boston (not only in Boston obviously) and this creates a pretty substantial and regular premium traffic. In fact, I would have expected Etihad to start Boston before EK simply because Abu Dhabi has so so so much money managed overseas.


User currently offlinestratacruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting tlecam (Reply 23):
Space is going to continue to be an issue. Physically, the only place to expand is to where the hangars are now. That would have all sorts of challenges, not the least of which is that those hangars presumably have uses, even with the AA and DL shrink over the years. It does not appear that there is room for another "satellite' terminal, a la Delta.

How about moving Southwest elsewhere? That would free up gates at the end of the terminal facing Term C. While these are too tight for widebodies, a number of BOS international operations are conducted with 737s (Copa), A320s (B6) and 757s (FI).


User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 61, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 55):
CBP would never allow a scheduled remote operation in BOS

Why? It's done elsewhere, what's special about BOS, that remote stands won't work?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinepa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 16):
One thing I would like to take the chance and ask, why is EK's total airfare including a smaller proportion of 'fees and taxes' in a typical air ticket? For example, the total costs for a flight from UK to Asia will be similar on EK and LH, however, the base fare will be lower in LH than EK while the 'taxes and fees' are higher in LH, any reason why?

Taxes are Government imposed fees. They should be the same for any airline operating between the same city pair. 'Fees' are carrier-imposed charges, most often the fuel surcharge. Some airlines start out with low base fares and then have a high fuel surcharge. Other carriers have high base fares and low fuel surcharge. As all the money goes to the airline the base fare and fuel surcharge are effectively just two parts of the overall fare for the carrier.
One reason one Emirates goes with the low fare/high fuel surcharge in some markets is because it is easier to adjust the fuel surcharge than refile new fares. The other is of course that in a fare display that an agent sees, having lower base fares will put their fares at the top of the table. EK only does this in some markets though, usually in markets where the competition does the same thing.



Nothing seems as good since the VC10.
User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 58):
I personally don't find the terminal and lack of upper deck jet bridge limitations to be an issue simply because EK does not and will not operate an A380 during the typical afternoon rush hour. Not too long ago many airports including LAX were using only 1 jetbridge to service 744's. Some probably still are. That's not any better than using 2 lower deck jetbridges to service an A380. BOS can do that very easily.

As for the passenger holding area, the current schedule has the flight departing around 11PM. Terminal E is a ghost town after 9pm. More importantly, I fully expect this flight to move to a morning/mid-morning operating schedule once the DXB runway work is completed, similar to JL's schedule and EK's schedule at JFK and IAD. At that time terminal E is also a ghost town and there are plenty of available gates. So like I said before, terminal and gate limitations are the least of the problems for an EK A380 at BOS. The bigger problem is airfield limitations of which taxiway widening is probably the biggest issue.

The 2 jetbridges has nothing to do with the traffic in the terminal, its efficient boarding. With 2 jetbridges on an A380 it already takes 45min to board, and thats with 1 on the main deck and 1 on the upper deck - most airports try to have 3 jetbridges available for an A380. Now if you only have 1 on the main deck, aside from the pax on the upper deck having to climb the staircase to the upper deck, just boarding that many people through a single jetbridge would take at least 1 hour and quite possibly longer, and the experience would just suck. Not EK or anyone's style. 1 jetbridge on a 744 isn't apples to apples, you only have a few pax going upstairs as compared to an A380.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 61):
Why? It's done elsewhere, what's special about BOS, that remote stands won't work?

Gemuser

Remote stands aren't the issue, its the arriving international pax and CBP.

I know of no other major US airports that allow scheduled international aircraft to deplane on a remote stand. I have seen it in Europe and other locations, but not in the US. I may be wrong but the only airport which comes close is IAD where the pax deplane into mobile lounges when an aircraft is parked at a remote stand and are taken to the INS hall. Why can't international pax deplane from a hardstand? Who knows...go ask CBP, and let me know if they give you an answer.

I've heard more than once they are mostly concerned about the passengers arriving and then having to take a bus to the terminal and in their opinion there is a greater risk for contraband to be brought in, stowaways, etc. I've also heard if a pax touches US soil prior to clearing immigration they are able to claim asylum status.


User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5607 posts, RR: 6
Reply 64, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):
I know of no other major US airports that allow scheduled international aircraft to deplane on a remote stand.

I am pretty sure it is/was done at LAX, so it is possible, just less convenient than at the terminal. Obviously for it to work proper controls would have to be put in place but it could be done.

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):
I've also heard if a pax touches US soil prior to clearing immigration they are able to claim asylum status.

I presume you mean when you step off the stairs and on to the bus. How is stepping on to a concrete slab any more touching US soil than stepping into a building on US soil?

Not saying that remote stands don't require special arrangements, and government entities like the TSA are are hard to change but it just requires the application of $$$s and political pressure, so it could happen.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8192 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):

The 2 jetbridges has nothing to do with the traffic in the terminal, its efficient boarding. With 2 jetbridges on an A380 it already takes 45min to board, and thats with 1 on the main deck and 1 on the upper deck - most airports try to have 3 jetbridges available for an A380. Now if you only have 1 on the main deck, aside from the pax on the upper deck having to climb the staircase to the upper deck, just boarding that many people through a single jetbridge would take at least 1 hour and quite possibly longer, and the experience would just suck. Not EK or anyone's style. 1 jetbridge on a 744 isn't apples to apples, you only have a few pax going upstairs as compared to an A380.

Correct but I never suggested using only 1 jetway. I said 2 lower deck jetways. I was comparing a 744 with 1 jetway vs. an A380 with 2 main deck jetways.
EK's upper deck only has 90 seats. It shouldn't take all that long to board. I agree, it's not very glamorous.

[Edited 2014-03-12 19:13:31]

User currently offlineaarbee From India, joined Aug 2005, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):
I know of no other major US airports that allow scheduled international aircraft to deplane on a remote stand. I have seen it in Europe and other locations, but not in the US. I may be wrong but the only airport which comes close is IAD where the pax deplane into mobile lounges when an aircraft is parked at a remote stand and are taken to the INS hall. Why can't international pax deplane from a hardstand? Who knows...go ask CBP, and let me know if they give you an answer.

I've heard more than once they are mostly concerned about the passengers arriving and then having to take a bus to the terminal and in their opinion there is a greater risk for contraband to be brought in, stowaways, etc. I've also heard if a pax touches US soil prior to clearing immigration they are able to claim asylum status.

At IAD Once you are in the mobile lounge, you are on US soil and won't one be able to claim asylum?



Love the AIXes
User currently offlinejetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 67, posted (3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):
I know of no other major US airports that allow scheduled international aircraft to deplane on a remote stand.
Quoting alphaomega (Reply 63):
I've heard more than once they are mostly concerned about the passengers arriving and then having to take a bus to the terminal and in their opinion there is a greater risk for contraband to be brought in, stowaways, etc. I've also heard if a pax touches US soil prior to clearing immigration they are able to claim asylum status.

I don't think there is anything to this claim, at all. I have deplaned on a remote stand at JFK Terminal 4 twice - once when arriving from CUN, and once when arriving from SXM. We had to take a bus to the terminal, which dropped us off right in line for CBP.



Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
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...
Emirates CEO Tim Clark Knighted posted Tue Dec 31 2013 06:34:50 by sunrisevalley
Airbus CEO Enders Jumped From A Plane posted Sat Oct 8 2011 13:45:44 by oldeuropean
Emirates CEO: "We Have A Ten Month Delay" - Part 2 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 18:15:28 by Singapore_Air
Emirates CEO:We Have Another 10 Month Delay-Part 2 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 17:13:27 by Slovacek747
Emirates CEO: "We Have A Further Ten Month Delay" posted Tue Oct 3 2006 11:34:18 by Singapore_Air
Emirates CEO Indicates Further A380 Delay posted Sun Jun 11 2006 19:13:51 by Singapore_Air
Eads CEO Enders: B787 A Good Plane, A350 Is Better posted Sat Mar 25 2006 07:12:28 by PlaneHunter
Austrian Sending A Bigger Plane To Damascus Today? posted Sun Feb 5 2006 12:42:44 by OyKIE
Bigger Plane For The Delta Shuttle posted Thu Aug 11 2005 07:16:13 by UALGSO
AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane posted Wed Jan 23 2013 13:39:53 by Gonzalo