georgiabill
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:23 am

MHT in 2006 saw a 10% decline in passengers from 4.3 million to 3.9 as a result of some of the carriers replacing mainline jets with regional jets,according to airport manager Kevin Dillon. He is hopefull of seeing an additional 70 flights per week by June 2007 (which will be a 13% higher than now) and 58 flights more per week than June 2006. Which translates into an additional 2987 more seats than June of 2006 or approximately 50 seats per flight. So it looks like more rj's for MHT in 2007. Personally I was hoping for additional mainline service and new routes. I believe there are several markets from MHT which I believe could support mainline service. MHT to FLL or MIA not only would serve south florida,but to bring connecting passengers for flights to the Caribbean and Central and South America. DEN and PHX would also be routes which I believe could be successful from MHT. Hopefully Southwest will eventually serve one or both of these routes. New carriers I would like to see at MHT would be Airtran to ATL, American to DFW and MIA and Frontier to DEN(assuming WN does not serve this route).Any thoughts would be appreciated.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:42 am

The figures quoted come from an article in the January 21st edition of the Manchester Union Leader newspaper in an article by Michael Cousineau(unionleader.com)
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:57 am

One immediate up-tick will come from two new Southwest nonstops: one each to Orlando and Midway. And although we've speculated on it to death, Phoenix is coming. The good news is that these two (perhaps three) nonstops commence early this year, which bodes well for our numbers in 2007. I wouldn't argue with the suggested markets you mentioned. It really is about a flow of planes from Boeing to Southwest, and where to slot them when they arrive.

The legacy carriers right now are entrenched with trying to either get or remain profitable, and with finding merger partners. They aren't looking to expand. So while AA might be nice, don't hold your breath. We need industry consolidation to start the domino effect, and then after dust settles we might see who's left standing. Then some growth might occur. Obviously this isn't a 2007 projection because these mergers are long & drawn-out affairs to propose, never mind pull off.

Dillon would like to think of himself as some wisened prognosticator, but he doesn't know. He really doesn't. He obviously has some insight and information none of us have, but only marginally. He's HOPING for there to be more flights and seats, but the airlines rule the roost on that.

Look for a flat year, or maybe even a bit of an 'up' year for MHT in 2007. I'm bullish and predict our 2007 numbers will be a bit above 2006, if only because of the new Southwest nonstops we know we're factually getting. Now, the travelling public just has to do their part and put themselves in those seats. I was on Southwest 405 from MHT-->BWI yesterday (N395SW). There were 63 aboard. Last night coming back I was on Flight 1929 (N767SW); even fewer on that one.

Chris in NH
 
onetogo
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:57 am

I'm sure ChrisNH will be able to add some very valuable insight into this discussion once he see's it.
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting Georgiabill (Thread starter):
American to DFW

You have no idea how happy that would make me. Anything to avoid the headache called Logan! Unfortunately, it just does not appear that the demand is there overall (48 daily pax according to FareMeasure). I'll keep on dreaming, though.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:09 am

unfortunately the article seems somewhat flawed, since they reference Usairways who has a "dummy/default" schedule after april, which is just copy/paste of previous schedules. I agree the bleeding has stopped but the article is not a correct indication of June 2007 advance schedules, since no airline has their 2007 schedules even close to finalized yet.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:47 am

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 5):
unfortunately the article seems somewhat flawed, since they reference Usairways who has a "dummy/default" schedule after april, which is just copy/paste of previous schedules. I agree the bleeding has stopped but the article is not a correct indication of June 2007 advance schedules, since no airline has their 2007 schedules even close to finalized yet.

Correct point to make. The press will jump on anything bullish, but in this case reality will probably be something less than the article suggested. Those 'far-out' schedules often make no sense. I've seen them where United has a 737-500 shown as coming in from O'Hare, but there's no 737-500 going the other way. Stuff like that.

Since we are all armchair enthusiasts--albeit smart and savvy ones--we can take articles like these with a grain of salt. What I know to be true--two brand-new Southwest nonstops starting in March--are the only things I can base hope on. Everything else is simply conjecture.

Chris
 
cofannyc
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:22 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:03 am

I'd love to see more service to anywhere by anyone at MHT. I used to live in northeast Massachusetts and used Independence Air to get back and forth from college in DC. Of course once that failed, I started to go to BWI and fly WN up.

Its a convenient little airport. But I think it'll take more time to get people to see it as a real alternative to BOS. Once that happens, more demand should lead to more mainline flights and then the numbers will turn around. Until that happens, I think Dillon is being a little bit optimistic...which he should be, he wants his airport to succeed.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:20 am

The reality is that people know about MHT and its benefits. I think word-of-mouth has done a good job of supplementing decent marketing. What has befallen MHT is not a lack of demand but a cut in supply. No, we're not filling 100% of the seats we now have...but neither is any other airport. That shouldn't be the gauge. What we do have is a situation where the investments, where they are being made, are being made at Logan. The legacy carriers are obviously very reluctant to give us more than token 'keep-the-doors-open' service to protect their already sizable investments at Logan. AA does this by not even flying to MHT; DL is doing this by downgrading here, and US has followed that same model to an extent. CO has next to nothing at MHT, although NW has been reasonably steady here. Bigger operations at regional stations mean more people, in an industry that really isn't adding more people.

I think we need to get through the winter season and see what the spring and summer bring in terms of flight schedules. I don't know when 'official' spring and summer schedules get loaded; perhaps Ricky knows. But that's going to be a good barometer in terms of answering the question du jour: 'Do we grow in 2007?' Like I said earlier, I do believe that the leakage is behind us and 2007 will be an 'up' year with respect to 2006.

Although I'm an optimist by nature, I've given up (for now) on hoping for (or expecting) new carriers at MHT. Perhaps the best to hope for is growth from the incumbents, who already know what MHT is doing for them. A look at the O&D stats will clearly point to opportunities that make sense, and rather than waiting for Southwest to connect some of these obvious points with their own 737-700s (say, MHT-DEN), United might be smart to do so first. There must be several such market pairs that would be attractive to Southwest, to the extent planes are available to serve them. Pre-emptive strikes by the incumbents would be a smart move, but they are too busy worrying themselves into a tizzy over mergers and whatnot.

It is abundantly clear, though, that passenger preference for MHT is and always has been sky-high. As I walked from the terminal to my car last night, I just did a mental tally of the license plates: Five New England states; Quebec; New Brunswick; New York...and that's just the cars I saw in one of the many lots.


Chris
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 2):
One immediate up-tick will come from two new Southwest nonstops: one each to Orlando and Midway.

My bad  ashamed . The two new flights are to Orlando and Philadelphia, not Chicago. Apparently it's an aircraft freed from the soon-to-be-terminated BDL-PHL route.

Chris
 
cofannyc
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:22 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:46 am

Kind of a dumb post on my part. I had really forgotten how far the airport had come from when I first remember using it (in the Concourse A/B days when I could pretty much sit anywhere on the plane) to the present.

I do agree that Logan is still seen as THE airport in New England (even though that thought makes me cringe). I think MHT should basically have the same domestic services as BOS. BOS will obviously remain the international airport of New England, but the time as come for both MHT and PVD to be as important domestically as BOS.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting COFanNYC (Reply 10):
I do agree that Logan is still seen as THE airport in New England (even though that thought makes me cringe). I think MHT should basically have the same domestic services as BOS. BOS will obviously remain the international airport of New England, but the time as come for both MHT and PVD to be as important domestically as BOS.

Well, as much as we might like that to be the case, I don't think it is at all feasible. Cost structures won't allow that kind of blanketing of a region. Lost in the mix is the role Massport plays in 'pressuring' airlines to focus more on their airport (Logan) than on ours. Only a fool would believe that doesn't happen. But to the extent that problems occur at Logan--spiraling congestion, higher fees, lease rates, whatever--airlines may re-think the whole idea of focusing on Logan at the expense of MHT and PVD. MHT and PVD might one day resurface as a favorite place to go, if Massport gets too heavy-handed with their tennants. That's the fine line they have: Massport is a bully, no two ways about it. But they know that 50 miles to the north and south are two airports who would bend over backwards to get them in there. The problem is that the airlines, apparently, haven't made any noise. They seem to be happy with Logan and the way it's run. That's fine, but it also will keep Massport a bit on the honest side. If they turn up the heat on carriers--thinking that they won't go anywhere and take whatever Massport dishes out--then it could get interesting. Dillon, I'm sure, takes every opportunity to 'tweak' Massport whenever he gets an audience with airline big-wigs. Conversely, Massport probably does the same to MHT and PVD. All's fair in battle, I guess.

Another factor is declining population in the region. The heydays of the 1980s and 1990s--the high-tech miracle--paved the way for lots of people to come to the Boston area and into southern New Hampshire. But that boom went bust, and 'Larry Bird ain't walking through that door, folks.' People are moving away from New England, not to it. Climate, cost of living, and waning job opportunities are catalysts for the shift which doesn't seem to have an end. That, too, plays a role in how much air service the region can support.

I think there's a whole long list of cities Manchester should logically be connected to via nonstop service. The O&D numbers bear them out. We just need the industry to nurse itself back to health, and the airline landscape will look decidedly different on the back end than it does now. I would rather have four healthy airlines than eight sick ones.

Chris
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:09 am

...or at least much closer where it makes sense. To think that places like DEN, IAH, DFW, STL, MCI, MKE, SLC, SEA, SFO, IND, ORF, LAX, SAN, MIA, PBI, CMH, RDU, and even MEM are ONLY served nonstop from BOS is out of balance IMHO.

While BDL has service to most of those too, BDL doesn't really serve the greater BOS catchment area, so it's not of any benefit to eastern New Englanders as a whole.
 
boslax
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:34 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 11):
MHT and PVD might one day resurface as a favorite place to go, if Massport gets too heavy-handed with their tenants. That's the fine line they have: Massport is a bully, no two ways about it

If what you mean is that Massport is taking a hard stand with its airline tenants and demanding they use or lose their gates, then I'm glad they're bullies. Massport's recent agreement with Delta and Terminal A will allow Massport to gain control of I believe 8 gates. The new Massport CEO, Tom Kinton, has been there for over 20 years and has the respect of his staff, the airlines, the airport industry, and Trot Nixon (that's a joke for you Sox fans). Anyway, Tom K is the furthest thing from a bully.

In regards to MHT and PVD resurfacing as a favorite place to go - I believe with Southwest continuing to increase their share of the local O&D passenger market (WN/MHT=50%, WN/PVD-=45%), it becomes more and more difficult for network carriers and other LCC's to profitably serve MHT and PVD. Just look at the decline in traffic at MHT and PVD the last year and a half - its been the network carriers that have lost considerable traffic due to all of the service cutbacks and mainline jet replacements. The costs may be higher at BOS but the operating margins are strong.
 
B752OS
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:25 am

Quoting COFanNYC (Reply 10):
I do agree that Logan is still seen as THE airport in New England (even though that thought makes me cringe). I think MHT should basically have the same domestic services as BOS. BOS will obviously remain the international airport of New England, but the time as come for both MHT and PVD to be as important domestically as BOS.

With respect to both PVD and MHT, that will never happen. Both of those airports don't have the facilities to match what Logan does. BOS is located right next to the city and is much easier to get to for the bulk of the region, all of Suffolk county, the bulkf of Norfolk, Middlesex and Plymouth counties. Add in the fact that there is much more air service and BOS is the obvius choice. That is not to smack down MHT and PVD, they are just located in smaller cities with less tourist and business traffic as well.

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 11):
Another factor is declining population in the region. The heydays of the 1980s and 1990s--the high-tech miracle--paved the way for lots of people to come to the Boston area and into southern New Hampshire. But that boom went bust, and 'Larry Bird ain't walking through that door, folks.' People are moving away from New England, not to it. Climate, cost of living, and waning job opportunities are catalysts for the shift which doesn't seem to have an end. That, too, plays a role in how much air service the region can support.

I look at the metro Boston area, Southern New Hampshire and Northeast Rhode Island as one large region. Just like NYC includes both north Jersey and southern Connecticut, I do the same for Boston; everything is just so close. With that being said, Massachusetts has seen a stabilized population over the last few years. We lost over 200,000 jobs after the late 90s/early 2000s, of which more than 80,000 have been gained back. The unemployment rate in Massachusetts has gone down and remains steady so we are on our way back. I really believe that Patrick is going to do good things for the state, especially in the areas of improving our public schools and colleges and universities. One thing to note, one of the biggest factors for companies moving to new areas or opening up offices and bases in areas is due to the quality of the local work force, just ask Merck when they chose Boston over northern New Jersey for their new labs.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6809
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:59 am

Quoting B752OS (Reply 14):
One thing to note, one of the biggest factors for companies moving to new areas or opening up offices and bases in areas is due to the quality of the local work force, just ask Merck when they chose Boston over northern New Jersey for their new labs.

And that is exactly why they are leaving New England. Fidelity Investments, one of the largest employers in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire is building a brand new campus in N.Carolina because that's where the workforce is. People can't afford to live here anymore, especially new college grads with high college loans. They're moving south and the jobs are going with them. Like Fidelity, many others are leaving. Gillette was another big one that left.

Having said that, there's still a lot of money in the area. The entire Northeast has very deep roots and it's not going to change overnight. The demand for air travel here will continue to increase at a decent pace.
 
vega
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:25 am

MHT's largest O&D destination after Orlando is Philadelphia, with about 11 daily flights (WN + US). That does not consider passengers connecting to domestic or international flights at PHL - primarily on US. Why isn't that enough to satisfy the needs of a community the size of Manchester, with Logan 50 miles down the road? I'm not posing an argumentative ? here, just curious as to why another airline would want to add services to an already well served, very localized market.
We are but a moment in this vast Universe and when gone we will never have existed.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting Vega (Reply 16):
just curious as to why another airline would want to add services to an already well served, very localized market.

Good question! If that BDL-PHL aircraft was a 'PHL' aircraft, then I'd probably pick a different city too! I'm glad we got the 6th flight, but I'm not sure the market needs it. Then again, I'm an armchair quarterback & no more. I defer to the folks at Southwest who deem that 6th MHT-PHL circuit necessary.

Chris
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:25 pm

Quoting Boslax (Reply 13):
If what you mean is that Massport is taking a hard stand with its airline tenants and demanding they use or lose their gates, then I'm glad they're bullies. Massport's recent agreement with Delta and Terminal A will allow Massport to gain control of I believe 8 gates. The new Massport CEO, Tom Kinton, has been there for over 20 years and has the respect of his staff, the airlines, the airport industry, and Trot Nixon (that's a joke for you Sox fans). Anyway, Tom K is the furthest thing from a bully.

I guess it's best to say that Massport always acts in its best interest, but so do the airlines! As you note, they will make payments on very underutilized gates just to keep their competition from getting them. It's not like the airport operator can just make new gates out of whole cloth. And they've shown they will ditch gates via bankruptcy when it suits them too.

Bottom line is both sides make long term investments in a very cyclical market, so it's never going to be a smooth relationship.

Quoting Boslax (Reply 13):
In regards to MHT and PVD resurfacing as a favorite place to go - I believe with Southwest continuing to increase their share of the local O&D passenger market (WN/MHT=50%, WN/PVD-=45%), it becomes more and more difficult for network carriers and other LCC's to profitably serve MHT and PVD. Just look at the decline in traffic at MHT and PVD the last year and a half - its been the network carriers that have lost considerable traffic due to all of the service cutbacks and mainline jet replacements. The costs may be higher at BOS but the operating margins are strong.

Another point that should be made is many legacies are focusing most of their energies on international flying these days, so it's only natural that some domestic operations will be downsized and some expansion opportunities will be ignored.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
flyboyaz
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:32 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:52 pm

Those numbers don't suprise me. Southwest is a great thing for smaller airports...but it's like Wal Mart moving into a small town....they compete so hard that they drive away other competition....then all there is left is....WAL MART. MHT isn't big enough for all the other airlines to compete head to head, seat for seat with WN....hopefully they don't lose too much service from other legacies.
Catch a ride on a smile!
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 15):
And that is exactly why they are leaving New England. Fidelity Investments, one of the largest employers in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire is building a brand new campus in N.Carolina because that's where the workforce is.

Fidelity is building either thier 2nd or 3rd building on thier large ampus in Smithfield, RI to house hundreds of jobs from former Boston offices as well.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:31 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 17):
Good question! If that BDL-PHL aircraft was a 'PHL' aircraft, then I'd probably pick a different city too! I'm glad we got the 6th flight, but I'm not sure the market needs it. Then again, I'm an armchair quarterback & no more. I defer to the folks at Southwest who deem that 6th MHT-PHL circuit necessary.

I'm sure that offering 6 flights from both PVD and MHT offers a better chance for WN to grab more of the eastern NE region demand. I wonder how well other carriers are doing in the BOS-PHL market. Perhaps WN sees this as a strategic move to pull more PHL pax from BOS to the outlying airports...

one thing for sure, is that WN knows what they are doing and I'm sure they see something in adding this flight to MHT.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:34 am

It's also rather telling for BDL that the planes weren't repurposed there (when the decison was made to axe BDL-PHL). As far as I know, Bradley lost those flights and got no new ones in return.
 
georgiabill
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:05 am

Just a side note in the Wednesday edition of the Manchester Union Leader in an article written by Tom Fahey it was reported that the state's Executive Council was to vote on spending an additional $423,000.00 on design work for the Manchester/Boston Airport access road from the F.E. Everett turnpike. In 1998 this project had a projected cost of $75,000,000.00 and now is projected to cost nearly $152,000,000.00 when completed in 2011(assuming no more eagles decide to nest where bridge is to be built). Work on the bridge is to begin this summer(First 2 construction contracts go out for bid this spring).This project will make access to the airport easier as many travelers will no longer need to use Brown Avenue.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:22 am

improved access is always good for any airport. While it certainly won't impact passenger traffic that much at all, the intermodal (bus, commuter rail, car rental and other amenities) facility at PVD is a huge step in the overall 'package' PVD will have to offer it's passengers. Having direct access to RT 95 has always been a big reason people think PVD is convenient.
 
boslax
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:34 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting PVD757 (Reply 21):
Perhaps WN sees this as a strategic move to pull more PHL pax from BOS to the outlying airports...

BOS has been able to hold onto their PHL traffic. The lastest O&D passengers data shows some interesting data.

BOS-PHL O&D,Fare
YE 2q05 642,440, $85
YE 2q06 673,540, $99
% chg 4.8%,16.1%

MHT-PHL O&D,Fare
YE 2q05 334,030, $44
YE 2q06 304,130, $69
% chg -9.0%,57.2%

PVD-PHL O&D, Fare
YE 2q05 355,220, $45
YE 2q06 293,820, $72
% chg -17.3%,60.9%

The fare increase at MHT and PVD is what is probably driving WN to increase service as their revenue performance has increased substanially. Also, approximately 30% of the MHT/PVD- PHL onboard traffic is going beyond PHL. Southwest is getting more gates in PHL, so has WN grows at PHL, the beyond opportunities increase for markets such as MHT and PVD.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:30 am

Quoting Boslax (Reply 25):
The lastest O&D passengers data shows some interesting data.

yes it does. And I agree that the revenue picture for WN at PVD & MHT to PHL has imoproved to the point that they are adding service despite downward trending local traffic.

It is interesting that when multiplying the local traffic with the average fare that there is more than 5 million dollars more revenu in the PVD-PHL market on 60,000 less passengers - yet the avg one way fare is still a bargain at $72.00!

[Edited 2007-01-25 18:35:17]
 
B752OS
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 15):
And that is exactly why they are leaving New England. Fidelity Investments, one of the largest employers in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire is building a brand new campus in N.Carolina because that's where the workforce is. People can't afford to live here anymore, especially new college grads with high college loans. They're moving south and the jobs are going with them. Like Fidelity, many others are leaving. Gillette was another big one that left.

Well if you knew anything about Boston businesses, you would know that Proctor and Gamble BOUGHT Gillette and that is why they are no longer based here in Boston. They maintain a large workforce and offices here in Boston. Also, Fidelity has said on numerous occasions that the move to open up in North Carolina is not based on the workforce problems here in Massachusetts, I don't know where you got that idea from. They are trying to expand the company and still, the bulk of the operations are in Boston and the surrounding areas.
 
bagoldex
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

RE: MHT IN 2007

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:19 am

In the case of fidelity, the jobs that are being opened in places like North Carolina and Rhode Island are not especially high end jobs. These are mostly call centers and such. All the people who truly matter to the bottom line, the fund managers and such, they are all still in Boston and New York and will be the foreseeable future. Can you really imagine the Magellan Fund being managed in Raleigh. It's absurd, that would be like me getting up and moving my fund to St. Louis or Omaha. Boston is the third largest money management center on earth to New York and London. There are three exchanges in the city, only New York and Chicago can parallel that. Aside from simply Fidelity which everybody knows about, there is Mellon, which even with the B of NY take over will still have billions of dollars managed here. State Street Global Advisors manages ten times more money than Fidelity. There are Putnam and MFS and several other smaller mutual fund shops. B of A's private client division and wealth management operations are not based in Charlotte, they are in Boston. Then there are all the venture capital and private equity firms, they aren't going anywhere either. Bain and TH Lee are two of the largest funds in the world. There are dozens of other upper tier firms as well. The legal field has seen a few mergers, but we still have Ropes & Gray, Fish & Richardson, Mintz Levin, Foley Hoag, Palmer Dodge and at least a dozen other firms with over 100 attorneys in their Boston offices. Those guys aren't moving to southern New Hampshire or Cranston either. Then there is the biotech community which may exist on the outer limits of metro Boston, but they are inherently going to be focused on where the talent is and that's Cambridge, not Manchester. I'm not going to bother naming all of the pharma and biotech firms because there are simply so many. So in the end, the point is just because fidelity is opening a few call centers and moving other menial 70k a year jobs out of the city that does not mean the entire economy is crashing around us. The air travel market will continue to be centered in Boston just because that is where the demand is. Looking at it from that aspect Manchester should be happy just to have an airport with jetbridges as their local economy is nothing to write home about. The legacies are not going to waste planes on places like that in an unfavorable climate. Manchester is not going to get Miami, nor Dallas on AA, no west coast flights certainly, at least not all after Providence which is a far more recognized and populated metro area. I think Manchester will continue to be what it is, a relatively low yielding destination that serves primarily local tourists. It is the perfect place for southwest and perhaps airtran flying families down to Orlando and retirees to Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Fort Myers.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3331
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: MHT IN 2007

Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:51 am

USA Today's very popular 'Today in the Sky' notes that Southwest is angling to get one more gate at RDU, to go with the four they have now. RDU ranks very high on the O&D list at MHT, so if everything tumbles in a favorable way (including more 737s from Boeing) MHT-RDU might be in the offing for sometime late this year or next.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brandnsn, crazytoaster, hoons90, IPFreely, karungguni, LatinPlane, qf15, shamrock350, thomasphoto60, Yahoo [Bot] and 214 guests