Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:57 pm

BOS is an airport built on reclaimed land. AS continued growth has pushed the airports to its limits, is infill a possible solution to further growth?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
FGITD
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:11 pm

cloudboy wrote:
BOS is an airport built on reclaimed land. AS continued growth has pushed the airports to its limits, is infill a possible solution to further growth?


Considering this is an airport where it takes dozens of studies and hundreds of community meetings to so much as put up a flag pole, I highly doubt they would ever fill in more of the harbor. Not to mention there isn't that much useable space, water or otherwise left.

Also of interest, it would appear E12 is at the very least stable for aircraft. Saw a delta 763 parked on it the other night for some mx work
 
VS11
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:13 pm

cloudboy wrote:
BOS is an airport built on reclaimed land. AS continued growth has pushed the airports to its limits, is infill a possible solution to further growth?



That's not really necessary. The airport has handled in the past 300(*) more daily flights so the airfield has the capacity for more flights.

* Per http://www.wbjournal.com/article/201612 ... /161229929 which VS4ever posted earlier.

"While the number of passengers has shot upwards, over the last 10 to 15 years the number of flights per day has fallen from about 1,500 to around 1,200, according to Massport CEO Tom Glynn. Planes flying in and out of Logan are generally bigger today and more crowded, according to Massport.

Glynn said that "in theory" the reduction in flights means the airport has the capacity for an additional 300 flights per day, but said, "That's not necessarily a goal that we have.""
 
hinckley
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:31 pm

tysmith95 wrote:
Could they throw an A320neo on this route once more of those are delivered? I believe that SK uses CPH as an A320 base and OSL and Stockholm as 737 bases.


Other than short-hops such as the Canadian Maritimes to the British Isles, and specialized services such as PrivatAir and BA's LCY-JFK, has any airline proved that any current 737 or A320-class can do eastern-U.S. to western-Europe with a normal passenger load?
 
georgiabill
Posts: 1274
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:53 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:34 pm

When the next WN schedule changes are released I am wondering what additions BOS might see. With WN'S new international gates at FLL I am hoping for atleast 1 daily BOS-FLL flight to connect to their international departures. CVG 1 or 2 daily. OAK would be an interesting add. But with all the SFO flights probably not likely. MSP another long shot, but they could beat B6 to it.

Any rumors of a any new international airlines coming in 2017? KE on a ICN-BOS-ICN route might do well 4 or 5 times weekly. Maybe BR or CI on a TPE-BOS-TPE route might work 4 or 5 weekly. Perhaps DY might launch BOS-BCN service. Any other European cities perhaps OS from VIE summer seasonal might work. LO from WAW perhaps after they order additional 787'S, same as OS summer seasonal. ATH would be nice but who would serve the route. Doubtful DL or AA would fly the route from BOS.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:54 pm

georgiabill wrote:
When the next WN schedule changes are released I am wondering what additions BOS might see. With WN'S new international gates at FLL I am hoping for atleast 1 daily BOS-FLL flight to connect to their international departures. CVG 1 or 2 daily. OAK would be an interesting add. But with all the SFO flights probably not likely. MSP another long shot, but they could beat B6 to it.

Any rumors of a any new international airlines coming in 2017? KE on a ICN-BOS-ICN route might do well 4 or 5 times weekly. Maybe BR or CI on a TPE-BOS-TPE route might work 4 or 5 weekly. Perhaps DY might launch BOS-BCN service. Any other European cities perhaps OS from VIE summer seasonal might work. LO from WAW perhaps after they order additional 787'S, same as OS summer seasonal. ATH would be nice but who would serve the route. Doubtful DL or AA would fly the route from BOS.


BOS has been spoiled with international expansion the last 4 years. Any additional international expansion right now would certainly be exciting, but I think BOS is close to saturation. I'd much rather see all the new entrants mature their operations and succeed long term then to see fairly new routes start getting dropped because of excess capacity. Though I keep seeing posts that Asia is the one market that could handle an additional carrier, so perhaps KE, BR or CI would work. I also think AV to BOG would work.
 
tjerome
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:03 pm

Emirates will be doing an A380 test run on January 26th.
 
User avatar
pitbosflyer
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:06 pm

VS11 wrote:
cloudboy wrote:
BOS is an airport built on reclaimed land. AS continued growth has pushed the airports to its limits, is infill a possible solution to further growth?



That's not really necessary. The airport has handled in the past 300(*) more daily flights so the airfield has the capacity for more flights.

* Per http://www.wbjournal.com/article/201612 ... /161229929 which VS4ever posted earlier.

"While the number of passengers has shot upwards, over the last 10 to 15 years the number of flights per day has fallen from about 1,500 to around 1,200, according to Massport CEO Tom Glynn. Planes flying in and out of Logan are generally bigger today and more crowded, according to Massport.

Glynn said that "in theory" the reduction in flights means the airport has the capacity for an additional 300 flights per day, but said, "That's not necessarily a goal that we have.""



All that being said. If passenger numbers keep increasing it will overwhelm the current terminals and create a less than ideal situation for passengers. Even if additional capacity for flights exists.

aka.....BOS becoming more like LGA (read as hell hole)

Also in the old days international flights were coming and going from all the terminals, not just E.
A:320/21, 333, 343, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 763, 772 || MD80, MD90 || E:145, 170, 175, 190, 195 || CR200, 700, 900
 
VS11
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:15 pm

pitbosflyer wrote:
All that being said. If passenger numbers keep increasing it will overwhelm the current terminals and create a less than ideal situation for passengers. Even if additional capacity for flights exists.


Valid point but what would be the bottleneck? Security checkpoints or not enough gates/terminal space? I personally have never experienced huge crowds at Logan. Even E during summer evenings is busy but not intolerable.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:33 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
When the next WN schedule changes are released I am wondering what additions BOS might see. With WN'S new international gates at FLL I am hoping for atleast 1 daily BOS-FLL flight to connect to their international departures. CVG 1 or 2 daily. OAK would be an interesting add. But with all the SFO flights probably not likely. MSP another long shot, but they could beat B6 to it.


Here's the changes in the last schedule as noted by WN.

https://www.southwestaircommunity.com/h ... dFreqs.pdf

BOS-MDW goes from 4-6 daily
BOS-STL goes from 3 to 4 daily

Total departures listed: 41 per day. which is about right, they run 3 gates full time at 10-11 per day and 2 at more like 4-5 a day, particularly with the early morning departures.
As a result i am not sure we are going to see a lot from them until they switch to B and potentially get access to those couple of extra gates late this year, early next year.

They have the ability to do 50-55 departures a day right now, but they are maxed out in the am hours, so without the extra gates it's going to be a little tricky for them to add many more additional destinations.

Side note. CBP have published their activity numbers for the end of the year, so I have updated them here.. throughput inside 30 minutes is about the same % at 80%

http://awhitelocks.wixsite.com/newengla ... throughput
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
pitbosflyer
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:35 pm

VS11 wrote:
Valid point but what would be the bottleneck? Security checkpoints or not enough gates/terminal space? I personally have never experienced huge crowds at Logan. Even E during summer evenings is busy but not intolerable.


In my experience C feels extremely cramped. Especially with EK, TAP, and EI operating departures from there currently. I was there last weekend and I had trouble getting by one of these international flights to my gate. There was so many people in the gate area it blocked the hallway.

This could be a very big problem for Jetblue especially who wants to expand alot more.

That being said security and checkin in C is very good now that the renovations have finished.
A:320/21, 333, 343, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 763, 772 || MD80, MD90 || E:145, 170, 175, 190, 195 || CR200, 700, 900
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:57 pm

Were EK, TAP, and EI all destined to move to C permanently or just temporarily? EI can come and go from C, but EK can't. And they can do neither if and when the A380 comes, and certainly once their new lounge opens (even if the A380 doesn't come, that new lounge will cause them to come back to E).

But per the above post, it sure seems like a cloudy horizon ahead if that building is destined to handle the kind of increase JetBlue is looking at while also being the permanent home to these three international carriers.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:00 pm

VS11 wrote:
pitbosflyer wrote:
All that being said. If passenger numbers keep increasing it will overwhelm the current terminals and create a less than ideal situation for passengers. Even if additional capacity for flights exists.


Valid point but what would be the bottleneck? Security checkpoints or not enough gates/terminal space? I personally have never experienced huge crowds at Logan. Even E during summer evenings is busy but not intolerable.


I flew out of E mid-November on QR on a Monday night and it was insanely crowded and chaotic. Perhaps with it being November there were gates closed or areas of E closed that made it feel more cramped, but I can't imagine what it was like this past summer.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:51 pm

VS11 wrote:
That's not really necessary. The airport has handled in the past 300(*) more daily flights so the airfield has the capacity for more flights.

Not exactly true. As it is every time an A380 lands everything else will have to stop because there isn't enough separation between taxiways. That will have a negative impact on total movements. And it's not going to get any better with future VLA twins. The other problem is expanding the terminals. They can either be built outwards, or inwards. Outwards requires moving the runways further into reclaimed land. Inwards requires possible relocation of the central parking garage and major redesign of airport roadways. Either option is not very appealing.

hinckley wrote:
Other than short-hops such as the Canadian Maritimes to the British Isles, and specialized services such as PrivatAir and BA's LCY-JFK, has any airline proved that any current 737 or A320-class can do eastern-U.S. to western-Europe with a normal passenger load?

WOW flies a high density A321ceo on KEF-BWI. That's only 200nm shorter than DUB-BOS for example. The NEO and certainly the A321LR should be able to. TAP announced that they bought a number of A321LR's specifically to fly to the U.S. so I'd like to think that they know a thing or two about its capabilities.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:30 pm

chrisnh wrote:
Were EK, TAP, and EI all destined to move to C permanently or just temporarily? EI can come and go from C, but EK can't. And they can do neither if and when the A380 comes, and certainly once their new lounge opens (even if the A380 doesn't come, that new lounge will cause them to come back to E).

But per the above post, it sure seems like a cloudy horizon ahead if that building is destined to handle the kind of increase JetBlue is looking at while also being the permanent home to these three international carriers.



EK was definitely temporary... TP maybe... With preclearance EI should stay in C unless they want to partake in the new BA lounge.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
User avatar
pitbosflyer
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:37 pm

Well I guess now with the E to C connector, El could potentially stay in C and use the BA lounge anyways. But it would be quite the haul.
A:320/21, 333, 343, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 763, 772 || MD80, MD90 || E:145, 170, 175, 190, 195 || CR200, 700, 900
 
tjerome
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:53 pm

airbazar wrote:
Not exactly true. As it is every time an A380 lands everything else will have to stop because there isn't enough separation between taxiways. That will have a negative impact on total movements. And it's not going to get any better with future VLA twins. The other problem is expanding the terminals. They can either be built outwards, or inwards. Outwards requires moving the runways further into reclaimed land. Inwards requires possible relocation of the central parking garage and major redesign of airport roadways. Either option is not very appealing.


I think within 100 years the whole airport will get knocked down and rebuilt, similar to what will be happening at LGA.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:11 am

tjerome wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Not exactly true. As it is every time an A380 lands everything else will have to stop because there isn't enough separation between taxiways. That will have a negative impact on total movements. And it's not going to get any better with future VLA twins. The other problem is expanding the terminals. They can either be built outwards, or inwards. Outwards requires moving the runways further into reclaimed land. Inwards requires possible relocation of the central parking garage and major redesign of airport roadways. Either option is not very appealing.


I think within 100 years the whole airport will get knocked down and rebuilt, similar to what will be happening at LGA.


That may be true. By and large Massport has done a great job of updating and expanding Logan where they can. Come 2021, only the piers of Terminal C will be lacking in quality, imo. Terminal A, B and E will all have had major renovations and expansions in that time. I think once all of the Terminal B work is done in a couple of years that's going to be a really nice facility.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:33 am

B752OS wrote:
That may be true. By and large Massport has done a great job of updating and expanding Logan where they can. Come 2021, only the piers of Terminal C will be lacking in quality, imo. Terminal A, B and E will all have had major renovations and expansions in that time. I think once all of the Terminal B work is done in a couple of years that's going to be a really nice facility.


Agreed and there are some more to come or at least being thought about..

According to the Massport capital plan, I can find the following: (sorry for the caps, it's a straight copy of the font from the PDF), these are projects with future costs tied to them.
http://www.massport.com/media/384937/FY ... -Cover.pdf

L1430 POST SECURITY CONCOURSE FROM GATES 37/38 TO THE FOOD COURT (Terminal B) - Proposed $25M
L1313 PRE AND POST-SECURITY CONNECTOR-TERM A&B - unfunded $40M
L1499 CBP IMPROVEMENTS - TERMINAL E - proposed $5m
L1375 TERMINAL B - AIRLINE CONSOLIDATION AND ENHANCEMENT - proposed $125m
L1374 JET BLUE IMPROVEMENTS - TERMINAL C - private (i.e B6 paying for it) -$100m with $85m over FY17 and FY18
L793 TERM C, PIER D ARRIVALS FLOOR REPLACEMENT - unfunded $5m
L1002 B TO C CONNECTOR CORRIDOR - unfunded $14m
L1012 TERMINAL C PIER D CORRIDOR FINISHES- unfunded $300K
L1429 GATES 40/41 CONNECTOR - unfunded $25m

this one is a little alarming:
L1463 EZ PASS SYSTEM FOR TERMINAL AREAS - funding contingent - $10m

clearly project plans change all the time and this was created a couple of years ago ,but is the insight to what they are thinking about at least. There are hundreds more projects, but the ones above i see are focused on the terminals themselves.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:12 am

tjerome wrote:
I think within 100 years the whole airport will get knocked down and rebuilt, similar to what will be happening at LGA.

That already started. The first to go was terminal A. Then it was terminal E. Terminal D has disappeared. Terminal B is slowly being replaced. Only terminal C remains pretty much the same albeit with some fresh lipstick. However, at the end of the day, there is no space to increase the footprint unless Massport follows one of the 2 options that I mentioned above.
 
tjerome
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:12 am

airbazar wrote:
tjerome wrote:
I think within 100 years the whole airport will get knocked down and rebuilt, similar to what will be happening at LGA.

That already started. The first to go was terminal A. Then it was terminal E. Terminal D has disappeared. Terminal B is slowly being replaced. Only terminal C remains pretty much the same albeit with some fresh lipstick. However, at the end of the day, there is no space to increase the footprint unless Massport follows one of the 2 options that I mentioned above.


I know A was just done 12 years ago but I was thinking more of the big picture of the whole airport not just each terminal. Knock down the whole complex and it's road system, expand, and rebuild everything. Eventually as growth continues this airport will turn into what LGA is now (in the aspect of terminals not the airfield/ATC issues). I see a complete demolition, expansion, and rebuild eventually.
 
VS11
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:58 am

airbazar wrote:
However, at the end of the day, there is no space to increase the footprint unless Massport follows one of the 2 options that I mentioned above.


In the interview, the Massport director said that they are not necessarily looking to increase the number of flights per day so the strategy would be to use bigger planes which is already happening, again per the same interview. So the question becomes how to accommodate more people in the terminals, and frankly that's easy - just put another floor on top for more waiting areas. No need to reclaim land. Besides with rising sea levels investing in Logan and similarly located airfields may not be very smart long-term.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:01 pm

VS4ever wrote:
B752OS wrote:
L1313 PRE AND POST-SECURITY CONNECTOR-TERM A&B - unfunded $40M
L1002 B TO C CONNECTOR CORRIDOR - unfunded $14m

Wow, this is interesting - A to B connector and B to C connector. Hopefully one fine day, all terminals are connected without necessity to go back to security. One thing also strikes out is that these connectors are damn expensive and probably why only C to E connected thus far.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:41 pm

tjerome wrote:
I know A was just done 12 years ago but I was thinking more of the big picture of the whole airport not just each terminal. Knock down the whole complex and it's road system, expand, and rebuild everything.

You can't knock an entire airport of 36 million annual passengers, down and leave Boston without an airport for 5 years while a new one is built. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. You have to do it one terminal at a time.
VS11 wrote:
In the interview, the Massport director said that they are not necessarily looking to increase the number of flights per day so the strategy would be to use bigger planes which is already happening, again per the same interview. So the question becomes how to accommodate more people in the terminals, and frankly that's easy - just put another floor on top for more waiting areas. No need to reclaim land. Besides with rising sea levels investing in Logan and similarly located airfields may not be very smart long-term.

That may not be possible if the original foundation was not built to support the additional weight. Especially in buildings built on soft reclaimed land like Logan airport. In addition, bigger planes need larger parking spaces/gate areas which is not exactly something Logan has in abundance. As it is you'll be hard pressed to park anything larger than an A320 in the new UA terminal and the plans for the new AA terminal show only 1 "large plane" gate. Currently DL needs to block adjacent gates just to operate their A330's. So it's not that simple.
L1002 B TO C CONNECTOR CORRIDOR - unfunded $14m

This already exists, unless they meant to say post-security connector?
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:09 pm

airbazar wrote:
L1002 B TO C CONNECTOR CORRIDOR - unfunded $14m

This already exists, unless they meant to say post-security connector?


I think so, because this is an unfunded future date project.

Time to hunker down for snow this afternoon, supposed to get a foot tonight, so will be interested to see the impact on logan today and tomorrow.

Stay safe folks.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:58 pm

Anyone know what's going on with CX service to BOS? They announced last year that from May '16 they were going 5x weekly, however, the last couple of months have only been 4x weekly. The press release doesn't say anything about the increase to 5x only being seasonal:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 10783.html

Why isn't the flight 5x weekly anymore and what does this mean for their plans to go daily?
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:02 pm

BA will use the A380 on the inbound 239 the night of January 29, so only three days after EK does theirs.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:19 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
Anyone know what's going on with CX service to BOS? They announced last year that from May '16 they were going 5x weekly, however, the last couple of months have only been 4x weekly. The press release doesn't say anything about the increase to 5x only being seasonal:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 10783.html

Why isn't the flight 5x weekly anymore and what does this mean for their plans to go daily?


The 5 weekly was just for May through end of August last summer. Daily is here to stay year round once it begins in a couple of months.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... gust-2016/
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:53 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Anyone know what's going on with CX service to BOS? They announced last year that from May '16 they were going 5x weekly, however, the last couple of months have only been 4x weekly. The press release doesn't say anything about the increase to 5x only being seasonal:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 10783.html

Why isn't the flight 5x weekly anymore and what does this mean for their plans to go daily?


The 5 weekly was just for May through end of August last summer. Daily is here to stay year round once it begins in a couple of months.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... gust-2016/


Awesome, thanks for that.

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of KE or BR to ICN, as well as CI to TPE, but with CX being so successful to HKG does anyone think CZ might also do well on a CAN-BOS flight since China is really strong for BOS?
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:19 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
adamh8297 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
Anyone know what's going on with CX service to BOS? They announced last year that from May '16 they were going 5x weekly, however, the last couple of months have only been 4x weekly. The press release doesn't say anything about the increase to 5x only being seasonal:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 10783.html

Why isn't the flight 5x weekly anymore and what does this mean for their plans to go daily?


The 5 weekly was just for May through end of August last summer. Daily is here to stay year round once it begins in a couple of months.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... gust-2016/


Awesome, thanks for that.

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of KE or BR to ICN, as well as CI to TPE, but with CX being so successful to HKG does anyone think CZ might also do well on a CAN-BOS flight since China is really strong for BOS?


I think there is enough empirical evidence now to support some more capacity to China/Asia direct from BOS. Rolling 12 months for Asia up to June has consistent loads in the 80's for all 3 (JL,HU and CX) even with significant jumps in capacity over the prior 12 months in the case of PVG and HKG, even NRT is holding firm and that could really be seen as a mature market compared to the others. Clearly none of this talks to the yields they are making and i am sure any support that Massport provided for them to provide service is helping offset any issues with that. With daily CX starting this year it will be interesting to see what impact this has or will it draw more folks from 1 stop routings as it becomes fully available.

The issue with China is the 1 route, 1 carrier rule, so that makes it difficult for CZ unless their routing can be considered different, certainly PVG and PEK are out as they are wrapped up with HU. There has been an awful amount of discussion about ICN and TPE and with the timings needed for Asian service I suspect capacity of E might not be an issue for them and obviously i would like to see it come, but the question is down to aircraft availability and whether use on BOS is the most profitable use of it.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:52 pm

VS4ever wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
adamh8297 wrote:

The 5 weekly was just for May through end of August last summer. Daily is here to stay year round once it begins in a couple of months.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... gust-2016/


Awesome, thanks for that.

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of KE or BR to ICN, as well as CI to TPE, but with CX being so successful to HKG does anyone think CZ might also do well on a CAN-BOS flight since China is really strong for BOS?


I think there is enough empirical evidence now to support some more capacity to China/Asia direct from BOS. Rolling 12 months for Asia up to June has consistent loads in the 80's for all 3 (JL,HU and CX) even with significant jumps in capacity over the prior 12 months in the case of PVG and HKG, even NRT is holding firm and that could really be seen as a mature market compared to the others. Clearly none of this talks to the yields they are making and i am sure any support that Massport provided for them to provide service is helping offset any issues with that. With daily CX starting this year it will be interesting to see what impact this has or will it draw more folks from 1 stop routings as it becomes fully available.

The issue with China is the 1 route, 1 carrier rule, so that makes it difficult for CZ unless their routing can be considered different, certainly PVG and PEK are out as they are wrapped up with HU. There has been an awful amount of discussion about ICN and TPE and with the timings needed for Asian service I suspect capacity of E might not be an issue for them and obviously i would like to see it come, but the question is down to aircraft availability and whether use on BOS is the most profitable use of it.


There's a lot of other factors.

In the CX/HU + MIA thread this week, someone mentioned that per US-China air services agreement, the Tier 1 frequencies are maxed out. These cover PEK/PVG/CAN.

CI and BR have very limited Mainland traffic rights too.

Yields to China are in the toilet. HU has sub 600 dollar flights from BOS to PEK/PVG and beyond for W17 and early spring. This may be enough to scare off KE. At least CX has the potential yield of HKG-BOS to buoy itself.

I played around with HU's schedule (PEK not PVG) and did notice its not always ideal for connections with the non-Tier 1 destinations.
Its possible HU adds another Chinese destination that isn't CAN. XIY is somewhat of a hublet/focus for them and they have Europe flights.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
PWMTrav
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:24 am

The recent discussion got me wondering about something -

If it's not necessarily total flights that are crowding BOS, but passenger numbers, is there any potential to build up and have some gates board from a 2nd departures level? Stack 'em a bit, and have some of the widebody gates board from two jetbridges (and two levels) to ease some of the crowding in the gate area. Possible/practical?
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:16 am

PWMTrav wrote:
The recent discussion got me wondering about something -

If it's not necessarily total flights that are crowding BOS, but passenger numbers, is there any potential to build up and have some gates board from a 2nd departures level? Stack 'em a bit, and have some of the widebody gates board from two jetbridges (and two levels) to ease some of the crowding in the gate area.
Possible/practical?


The first part of your question could be answered here......

airbazar wrote:
That may not be possible if the original foundation was not built to support the additional weight. Especially in buildings built on soft reclaimed land like Logan airport. In addition, bigger planes need larger parking spaces/gate areas which is not exactly something Logan has in abundance. As it is you'll be hard pressed to park anything larger than an A320 in the new UA terminal and the plans for the new AA terminal show only 1 "large plane" gate. Currently DL needs to block adjacent gates just to operate their A330's. So it's not that simple


As for the second part,
Massport is finalizing the construction of the 3 double jetbridge gates for the A380 on E10/E11 and E12, but as a number of folks have noticed, they are not designed for double boarding of 77W's etc. so unless they re-design E1-E9 with bridge extensions, that's probably not going to happen. In terminal C, obviously C17, C20, C21 hold widebodies, and might work for double bridges in the future if B6 start their plans for TATL flying, but as noted above A and B not so much being designed that way.

In addition, having double bridges only works for the actual boarding process, it doesn't help the gate area overcrowding as pax numbers continue to rise.

I think we all agree that for long term expansion at BOS, above say 40-42m, something will need to be done, this year has hit 36m and somehow we shoehorned 3m extra pax in 16 through the terminals. 17 I think will be a slower expansion, but could quite easily hit 37-38m, that's some going to put it into perspective, for 12 month rolling to Nov 2009, 25.4m passed through BOS, for the same in 2016 it's 36m, that's 44% increase, even in the heady days before 9/11 only 27m went through, so no wonder BOS is effectively creaking at the seams. If/when the new international gates are completed in 2021 (3 new gates i think), if you assume 80% LF on a 280 seat aircraft 3 times a day for 300 days (not everything will be daily), that's another 400K pax right there. B6 will be slowly switching up to 321's and going from 150-162 on a number of their 320 flights. 12 seats per flight doesn't sound like a lot, but that works out to be 50K per gate per year if you use a gate 8 times a day (not unreasonable), so it won't take much to push these numbers ever higher.

Massport doesn't have a major revamp in it's capital budget before 2020 of the level that would be required for double decking terminals, the revamp to Terminal E as it is is costly enough. maybe in their next revision we might see something, but that's a long way off.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:12 am

Yes they had more operations in the past. But many of those were small turboprop aircraft, which needed much less gate and terminal area. That is where Logan is suffering. I wasn't asking about filling in to create more runway or taxi space, but space for another terminal.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:00 am

Annnnddd the month rolls around again... time for the T-100's for July.. here's all the international stuff. Time to start work on the data files again. QR is accurate as I double checked the calculation based on the number of flights loaded (27).

Asia
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
BOS-NRT - 81.2%
BOS-PEK - 88.8%
BOS-PVG - 86.9%

Caribbean
BOS-BDA (B6) - 77.7%
BOS-BDA (DL) - 66.0%
BOS-PAP - 91.8%
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 82.9%
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 89.7%
BOS-SDQ - 92.0%
BOS-SJU - 87.0%
BOS-STI - 93.0%

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 89.0%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 78.8%
BOS-YOW - 68.6%
BOS-YTZ - 79.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.7%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 88.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 77.9%

Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 89.2%
BOS-CUN (B6) - 88.2%
BOS-CUN (DL) - 89.2%
BOS-MEX - 79.9%
BOS-PTY - 89.7%

Europe
BOS-AMS - 81.6%
BOS-CDG (AA) - 67.1%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 77.9%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 81.4%
BOS-CGN - 64.4%
BOS-CPH (DY) - 87.8%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 78.0%
BOS-DUB - 90.6%
BOS-DUS - 76.0%
BOS-FCO - 86.5%
BOS-FRA - 77.9%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 90.0%
BOS-KEF (WW) - 86.2%
BOS-LGW - 91.0%
BOS-LHR (BA) - 83.5%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 63.8%
BOS-LHR (VS) - 81.4%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 84.0%
BOS-LIS (TP) - 85.1%
BOS-MAD - 80.8%
BOS-MAN - 84.2%
BOS-MUC - 86.4%
BOS-OSL - 90.0%
BOS-SNN (EI) - 89.5%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 85.6%
BOS-TER - 79.3%
BOS-ZRH - 84.6%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 92.9%
BOS-DXB - 86.7%
BOS-IST - 80.4%
BOS-TLV - 77.0%

ORH-FLL - 87.1
ORH-MCO - 79.3%
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:16 am

BOS-HKG - 89.3%
Leads me to wonder if Hong Kong Airlines will take a stab at this route once they get their A350s, are there any restrictions on flights between the US and Hong Kong?
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:36 am

aaflyer777 wrote:
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
Leads me to wonder if Hong Kong Airlines will take a stab at this route once they get their A350s, are there any restrictions on flights between the US and Hong Kong?


Not sure if there are restrictions, but with CX going daily this year, it might be worth waiting to see how that plays out first before diving in with another chunky uplift in capacity. If the numbers hold steady. I would think it's worth a shot, I think we've all been saying for some time that Asia could do with some more lift, although interesting to see NRT notching back a little. JL have been level on capacity but are down about 6% YOY in July 15/16 loads.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:49 am

VS4ever wrote:

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 89.0%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 78.8%
BOS-YOW - 68.6%
BOS-YTZ - 79.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.7%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 88.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 77.9%


PD's number was crazy - dug into a bit quickly and noticed they had increased pax with decreased capacity. Have fares been lower with WS entering or is this Gulf Carriers (and others) being fed by PD. I wonder how AC did YOY too.

VS4ever wrote:

Europe
BOS-FRA - 77.9%
BOS-MUC - 86.4%


The splits are strange on BOS-FRA - more Europe originating and BOS-MUC is even on that regard.

VS4ever wrote:

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 92.9%
BOS-DXB - 86.7%



What can I say - insane numbers from 2/3 of the ME3. I wonder how QR would have done if daily.

VS4ever wrote:

Central America
BOS-PTY - 89.7%


2/3 of this month was served by 738 as opposed to last year where it looks like once a week got the 738. Good to see this route and MEX gain traction.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:39 am

adamh8297 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 89.0%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 78.8%
BOS-YOW - 68.6%
BOS-YTZ - 79.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.7%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 88.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 77.9%


PD's number was crazy - dug into a bit quickly and noticed they had increased pax with decreased capacity. Have fares been lower with WS entering or is this Gulf Carriers (and others) being fed by PD. PD last year was 58%. I wonder how AC did YOY too.


VS4ever wrote:

Europe
BOS-FRA - 77.9%
BOS-MUC - 86.4%


The splits are strange on BOS-FRA - more Europe originating and BOS-MUC is even on that regard.

VS4ever wrote:

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 92.9% (96% inbound)
BOS-DXB - 86.7% DXB was over 600 inbound a day and nearly that outbound too, i wonder if EK would think year round 380 and a seasonal 77W?



What can I say - insane numbers from 2/3 of the ME3. I wonder how QR would have done if daily.

VS4ever wrote:

Central America
BOS-PTY - 89.7%


2/3 of this month was served by 738 as opposed to last year where it looks like once a week got the 738. Good to see this route and MEX gain traction.


For AC...
(AC was 84.5% last year, 89.8% for RS), so it's hard to tell which it is, but suffice to say, even with WS entering the market, butts on seats is not being affected greatly in fact everyone is going up and AC reacted by pushing out Sky and going mainline, but WS took a 23% market share

AC (Seats/Pax) 2015 (17,256/14,553), 2016 (29,001/25,710) - Market Share 2015 42%, 2016 54%
RS (Seats/Pax) 2015 (22,340/20,054), 2016 (12,541/10,805) - Market Share 2015 58%, 2016 23%
WS (seats/Pax) 2015 (N/A) 2016 (14,196/11,062) - Market Share 2015 0%, 2016 23%
Total (Seats/Pax) 2015 (39,596/34,607) 2016 (55,738/47,577)

PD (seats/pax) 2015 (31,080/18,023), 2016 (27,824/21,991) - that's crazy, but awesome for their profitability, run less aircraft but more pax on them, that means very happy bean counters.

u]Middle East[/u]
BOS-DOH - 92.9% (96% inbound)
BOS-DXB - 86.7% DXB was over 600 inbound a day and nearly that outbound too, i wonder if EK would think year round 380 and a seasonal 77W?

FRA/MUC
yes that is a weird set up, there is a slight issue with a couple of diverts contributing to it . I have an outbound BOS-EWR on LH with 96% Load and a BOS-PHL with a 93% load, which if you pull those out you end up with double daily and a slightly lower factor (about a 1% differential), MUC also has 1 flight off which bizarrely came from BDL with a 96% load
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:44 pm

I wonder if FRA felt some impact from ZRH going double daily? There is some overlap in their connecting flights.
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
airbazar
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:30 pm

chrisnh wrote:
BA will use the A380 on the inbound 239 the night of January 29, so only three days after EK does theirs.

I hope it's so successful that they decide to keep it, because I have a trip to LHR at the end of February :)

PWMTrav wrote:
If it's not necessarily total flights that are crowding BOS, but passenger numbers, is there any potential to build up and have some gates board from a 2nd departures level? Stack 'em a bit, and have some of the widebody gates board from two jetbridges (and two levels) to ease some of the crowding in the gate area. Possible/practical?

I'm not sure how that solves anything. The problem is terminal space and there are no inexpensive ways to solve that. When LHR rebuilt T2 they built it up and it turned out to be a great terminal, albeit with a lot of elevators and escalators :). But it's a brand new terminal built from the ground up and not on top of an old, existing terminal.

tlecam wrote:
I wonder if FRA felt some impact from ZRH going double daily? There is some overlap in their connecting flights.

FRA also goes double-daily in the Summer and one of the flight is a 748 which has a very large premium cabin. If they're getting 77%, the yields must be pretty good.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:58 pm

I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book. They can't bring the A380 to Boston until and unless they have a smaller plane to stick on that 2nd flight. And they don't (not enough 77L's in the fleet). The usual caveat applies: 'IMO.' :biting:
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:23 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book. They can't bring the A380 to Boston until and unless they have a smaller plane to stick on that 2nd flight. And they don't (not enough 77L's in the fleet). The usual caveat applies: 'IMO.' :biting:


Any idea how many 77L's EK has, and other than FLL - what other routes are they using them on?
 
FGITD
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:24 pm

I believe another major hold up is cargo. Emirates flies a lot of cargo, year round. That's worth a fair amount, and has to be taken into account.

The 380 just can't match anywhere near the cargo capacity of one 77w, let alone 2.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:28 pm

aaflyer777 wrote:
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
Leads me to wonder if Hong Kong Airlines will take a stab at this route once they get their A350s, are there any restrictions on flights between the US and Hong Kong?


If these loads keep up for CX after going daily I wonder if they'd up frequency to something like 10x weekly and offer an earlier departure 3x a week around 1:45pm-2pm with evening arrival into HKG? I believe both JFK and ORD have similar early afternoon departures.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:48 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book. They can't bring the A380 to Boston until and unless they have a smaller plane to stick on that 2nd flight. And they don't (not enough 77L's in the fleet). The usual caveat applies: 'IMO.' :biting:


EK just needs to adjust capacity as needed which wasn't their Modus Operandi but times are changing. Its just tough to do this with three plane types (77W, 77L, A380). Never should have cancelled the A359's. Why run double daily BOS-DXB in off-peak Autumn - its wise decision to take 6 weeks off. Lufthansa doesn't run double daily BOS-FRA in the dead of winter their worst time.


clrd4t8koff wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book. They can't bring the A380 to Boston until and unless they have a smaller plane to stick on that 2nd flight. And they don't (not enough 77L's in the fleet). The usual caveat applies: 'IMO.' :biting:


Any idea how many 77L's EK has, and other than FLL - what other routes are they using them on?


10 and the 2nd SEA-DXB gets it and this summer i believe the 2nd LAX-DXB gets it in lieu of A380!

clrd4t8koff wrote:
aaflyer777 wrote:
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
Leads me to wonder if Hong Kong Airlines will take a stab at this route once they get their A350s, are there any restrictions on flights between the US and Hong Kong?


If these loads keep up for CX after going daily I wonder if they'd up frequency to something like 10x weekly and offer an earlier departure 3x a week around 1:45pm-2pm with evening arrival into HKG? I believe both JFK and ORD have similar early afternoon departures.


I think it depends on the BOS-HKG O+D numbers which most likely yield higher than lets say someone going to WUH or BKK via HKG on CX. SIN is probably a good yielding market from BOS as well.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
airbazar
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:37 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book.

EK is adding Y+. That will reduce the number of seats per plane and by default, increase LF. Unfortunately that won't happen until mid 2018.
As for the twice daily. It's required not because of the BOS side but because DXB's terminals are so crowded that they need to spread their business over as many connecting banks as possible, when feasible. And with 600 daily pax from BOS, it is definitely feasible to operate 2x daily.
 
baje427
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:52 pm

Are there any number for BOS-BGI or BOS-UVF?

VS4ever wrote:
Annnnddd the month rolls around again... time for the T-100's for July.. here's all the international stuff. Time to start work on the data files again. QR is accurate as I double checked the calculation based on the number of flights loaded (27).

Asia
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
BOS-NRT - 81.2%
BOS-PEK - 88.8%
BOS-PVG - 86.9%

Caribbean
BOS-BDA (B6) - 77.7%
BOS-BDA (DL) - 66.0%
BOS-PAP - 91.8%
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 82.9%
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 89.7%
BOS-SDQ - 92.0%
BOS-SJU - 87.0%
BOS-STI - 93.0%

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 89.0%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 78.8%
BOS-YOW - 68.6%
BOS-YTZ - 79.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.7%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 88.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 77.9%

Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 89.2%
BOS-CUN (B6) - 88.2%
BOS-CUN (DL) - 89.2%
BOS-MEX - 79.9%
BOS-PTY - 89.7%

Europe
BOS-AMS - 81.6%
BOS-CDG (AA) - 67.1%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 77.9%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 81.4%
BOS-CGN - 64.4%
BOS-CPH (DY) - 87.8%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 78.0%
BOS-DUB - 90.6%
BOS-DUS - 76.0%
BOS-FCO - 86.5%
BOS-FRA - 77.9%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 90.0%
BOS-KEF (WW) - 86.2%
BOS-LGW - 91.0%
BOS-LHR (BA) - 83.5%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 63.8%
BOS-LHR (VS) - 81.4%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 84.0%
BOS-LIS (TP) - 85.1%
BOS-MAD - 80.8%
BOS-MAN - 84.2%
BOS-MUC - 86.4%
BOS-OSL - 90.0%
BOS-SNN (EI) - 89.5%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 85.6%
BOS-TER - 79.3%
BOS-ZRH - 84.6%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 92.9%
BOS-DXB - 86.7%
BOS-IST - 80.4%
BOS-TLV - 77.0%

ORH-FLL - 87.1
ORH-MCO - 79.3%
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:59 pm

airbazar wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
I think EK is caught between a rock and a hard spot with respect to the A380 in Boston. 600 people inbound per day is more than one A380 can handle, which means a second flight is needed. And that pretty much has to be a 77W, which would probably make their loads around 60%-70% with that mix. A no-go in my book.

EK is adding Y+. That will reduce the number of seats per plane and by default, increase LF. Unfortunately that won't happen until mid 2018.
As for the twice daily. It's required not because of the BOS side but because DXB's terminals are so crowded that they need to spread their business over as many connecting banks as possible, when feasible. And with 600 daily pax from BOS, it is definitely feasible to operate 2x daily.


Let's put our conversation into perspective for a minute, here we are talking about 10x weekly for BOS-HKG and 600 pax a day BOS-DXB along with around 250 a day for BOS-DOH routes that 3 years ago didn't exist, and somehow we have bolted on that many and continued the growth in other areas. Obviously it looks like LHR and FRA have taken a bit of a hit because of no longer needing to be the connectors they once were, but it's still incredible.

I still think for the time being BOS could go 380 and 77w in the summer and 380 in the winter unless the cargo number is off the charts.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2592
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 12

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:00 pm

baje427 wrote:
Are there any number for BOS-BGI or BOS-UVF?

VS4ever wrote:
Annnnddd the month rolls around again... time for the T-100's for July.. here's all the international stuff. Time to start work on the data files again. QR is accurate as I double checked the calculation based on the number of flights loaded (27).

Asia
BOS-HKG - 89.3%
BOS-NRT - 81.2%
BOS-PEK - 88.8%
BOS-PVG - 86.9%

Caribbean
BOS-BDA (B6) - 77.7%
BOS-BDA (DL) - 66.0%
BOS-PAP - 91.8%
BOS-PUJ (AA) - 82.9%
BOS-PUJ (B6) - 89.7%
BOS-SDQ - 92.0%
BOS-SJU - 87.0%
BOS-STI - 93.0%

Canada
BOS-YHZ (QK) - 89.0%
BOS-YHZ (WS) - 78.8%
BOS-YOW - 68.6%
BOS-YTZ - 79.0%
BOS-YUL - 76.7%
BOS-YYZ (AC) - 88.7%
BOS-YYZ (RS) - 86.2%
BOS-YYZ (WS) - 77.9%

Central America
BOS-CUN (AA) - 89.2%
BOS-CUN (B6) - 88.2%
BOS-CUN (DL) - 89.2%
BOS-MEX - 79.9%
BOS-PTY - 89.7%

Europe
BOS-AMS - 81.6%
BOS-CDG (AA) - 67.1%
BOS-CDG (AF) - 77.9%
BOS-CDG (DL) - 81.4%
BOS-CGN - 64.4%
BOS-CPH (DY) - 87.8%
BOS-CPH (SK) - 78.0%
BOS-DUB - 90.6%
BOS-DUS - 76.0%
BOS-FCO - 86.5%
BOS-FRA - 77.9%
BOS-KEF (FI) - 90.0%
BOS-KEF (WW) - 86.2%
BOS-LGW - 91.0%
BOS-LHR (BA) - 83.5%
BOS-LHR (DL) - 63.8%
BOS-LHR (VS) - 81.4%
BOS-LIS (S4) - 84.0%
BOS-LIS (TP) - 85.1%
BOS-MAD - 80.8%
BOS-MAN - 84.2%
BOS-MUC - 86.4%
BOS-OSL - 90.0%
BOS-SNN (EI) - 89.5%
BOS-SNN (X9) - 85.6%
BOS-TER - 79.3%
BOS-ZRH - 84.6%

Middle East
BOS-DOH - 92.9%
BOS-DXB - 86.7%
BOS-IST - 80.4%
BOS-TLV - 77.0%

ORH-FLL - 87.1
ORH-MCO - 79.3%


Not at my computer, but I will check and get back to you
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos