Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
styles9002
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:27 pm

VS4ever wrote:
adamh8297 wrote:
As of right now 5 airlines will be on BOS-CDG and LON (all airports) for S18 though 2 cooperate as one (DL + AF or VS)!!!


True, but let's be honest, with AA's loads and general trimming of BOS operations, are they really going to stick around against DL/AF/DY and PF? No way will a 5 way fight from CDG work, I am not even sure a 4 way will work to be honest, but hey, let's give it a shot. I am so happy that BHX comes along for next year. I am seriously considering it if I go back home again.

Looking at the fleet, PF will have 8 planes to do the job. the format appears to be 16 premium, 22 Y+ and 162 Y for a total of 200, DL's 321's in comparison are 20/29 and 143 for a total of 192 with a 31inch pitch in Y, so I suspect 29-30 is what you are going to get in order to fit those extra seats differential. WW's all economy version for 200 is 30-31 all the way.


Routes Online indicate C16Y182 for a total of 198 seats for PF.
It is what it is.
 
User001
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:34 pm

Thomas Cook will increase Manchester-Boston in 2018 as follows:

June will see 5 weekly flights, with days if operation being Mon/Tue/Wed/Fri/Sat
May, July-September will see 4 weekly flights, on a Mon/Tue/Fri/Sat.

This of course makes Manchester-Boston 6/7 weekly overall, with Virgin having 2 weekly flights also.

Seems the UK is really hotting up for Boston.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:35 pm

User001 wrote:
Thomas Cook will increase Manchester-Boston in 2018 as follows:

June will see 5 weekly flights, with days if operation being Mon/Tue/Wed/Fri/Sat
May, July-September will see 4 weekly flights, on a Mon/Tue/Fri/Sat.

This of course makes Manchester-Boston 6/7 weekly overall, with Virgin having 2 weekly flights also.

Seems the UK is really hotting up for Boston.


MT doing nicely started small in 16, upped in 17 and upped again in 18, doing well as a seasonal, question is could this go year round at 2 weekly?
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.
 
User001
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:39 pm

Well, Primera Air going straight in with year round, but then a 2 weekly A321 would probably fare better than a 2 weekly A330. Time will tell I suppose, TCX are looking to make more US routes year round.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:46 pm

VS4ever wrote:
User001 wrote:
Thomas Cook will increase Manchester-Boston in 2018 as follows:

June will see 5 weekly flights, with days if operation being Mon/Tue/Wed/Fri/Sat
May, July-September will see 4 weekly flights, on a Mon/Tue/Fri/Sat.

This of course makes Manchester-Boston 6/7 weekly overall, with Virgin having 2 weekly flights also.

Seems the UK is really hotting up for Boston.


MT doing nicely started small in 16, upped in 17 and upped again in 18, doing well as a seasonal, question is could this go year round at 2 weekly?


Awesome news... still missing a direct to Scotland from BOS (not PVD) in my opinion. I wonder if GLA will be the other destination Primera mentioned which may mirror the CDG schedule.

I wish MT would feed its own holiday flights (MLA, Greek Islands, Balearics, etc.) with USA longhaul.
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 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:46 pm

User001 wrote:
Seems the UK is really hotting up for Boston.


Its only a matter of time before all of this UK expansion is going to start hurting the already horrible yields on DL to LHR. (Yes I know the front of the plane makes them money....blah blah blah)
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
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:53 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
What the heck are you even talking about? "Thats not how the free market works?" Free market means the airlines can serve where they want, but on the flip side customers can also do the same.

Right, we agree with that. When MHT stopped offering airlines the incentive to do business in MHT, they went somewhere else and so did the customers.

RL757PVD wrote:
You argument about shopping local is equally flawed. People shop local to support the local economy and local jobs, as opposed to going to Walmart, its not about having the same product. Many people understand the benefits and importance associated with paying a little more and buying local.

But here we disagree. That mentality is why so many of our local businesses went out of business. Some ideological people will do what you claim but the majority of us agree to pay more to shop local only if the local business can supply the product that we want or better. I'm not going to buy a crap product from a local business if I can get a better product from somewhere else. That's what happened to MHT, they stopped offering a product that people wanted.
 
User001
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:54 pm

I think Thomas Cook could do very well feeding it's short haul network from the USA. AA/BA have actually started seeing a lot of transfers from the AA flights to the BA Cityflyer routes at MAN, so, it's a possible market.

I think TCX's main aim on short haul is selling the holiday packages however.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:08 pm

airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
What the heck are you even talking about? "Thats not how the free market works?" Free market means the airlines can serve where they want, but on the flip side customers can also do the same.

Right, we agree with that. When MHT stopped offering airlines the incentive to do business in MHT, they went somewhere else and so did the customers.

RL757PVD wrote:
You argument about shopping local is equally flawed. People shop local to support the local economy and local jobs, as opposed to going to Walmart, its not about having the same product. Many people understand the benefits and importance associated with paying a little more and buying local.

But here we disagree. That mentality is why so many of our local businesses went out of business. Some ideological people will do what you claim but the majority of us agree to pay more to shop local only if the local business can supply the product that we want or better. I'm not going to buy a crap product from a local business if I can get a better product from somewhere else. That's what happened to MHT, they stopped offering a product that people wanted.


its not about incentives in the monetary form. those are regulated by the FAA, and in fact Massport actually does not offer any incentives at all (at least in recent years). Airlines noticed that passengers would drive to BOS which reduced their "incentive" to serve MHT.

MHT did not do anything to change their product, the airlines did that, its not the MHT management either, this story can be told at nearly half of the small airports throughout the country by airports who work hard to even just maintain what they have.

Simply stated: Airlines. Don't. Care. About. Communities They Serve.

They care about $$$ only and will put the seats where they make the most money.

If MHT wants more service, its needs to be worthwhile for the airline, aka people paying more to fly out of MHT. Its a simple as that. BOS has the advantage of economies of scale for the airline operation, so it needs to me made up y either lower costs, or a fare premium. When service was reduced (as people drove to BOS) it made it hard for airports like PVD/MHT to reduce their costs to keep that equilibrium.

PVD bottomed out a few years ago allowing for some traction to be made in the cost equation, and as traffic and congestion increases in Boston, it helps made the case for the fare premium, hence the recent developments.

There are some old sayings like "put your money where you mouth is" or "vote with your feet" that es extremely true for small community air service.

Anyone who complains about local air service and regularly willingly uses another airport, loses the ability to criticize, and are proving the airlines case in reducing service. Think of it like voting, your individual vote might not make a difference, but they can add up.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:16 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
its not about incentives in the monetary form. those are regulated by the FAA, and in fact Massport actually does not offer any incentives at all (at least in recent years). Airlines noticed that passengers would drive to BOS which reduced their "incentive" to serve MHT.

MHT did not do anything to change their product, the airlines did that, its not the MHT management either, this story can be told at nearly half of the small airports throughout the country by airports who work hard to even just maintain what they have.

"MHT did not do anything to change their product" - Exactly! That's called complacency, laziness, incompetence, take your pick. In business that usually means "the end".
If you think most of these new airlines and routes, especially the LCC ones would be coming to BOS and PVD without incentives then you know very little about the airline industry. But I know that's not true so this discussion is over because now you're just being a troll. New service is very heavily based on incentives provided by the airport and local business community. Massport like most airports has had a long standing incentive package for any new airline and new route. It has paid off huge dividends and continues to do so.
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:22 pm

I would fly out of MHT more if it had more service that catered to me. WN flights to hubs are not enough, and I hate RJs. I've also hitched my wagon to B6 for the vast majority of my flying, and that's another mark against MHT.

MHT is a 25 minute drive from me on route 3 / Everett Turnpike. So is Logan Express on 495/93 or route 3/128. The parking is cheaper at MHT and it's easier to get to. But when I have to fly to MKE, SFO, DAL, SEA, LAX... I'll take the nonstops out of BOS and use Logan Express.

I always check WN on MHT to compare prices and timing, and I'll take MHT when it makes sense, but the airlines have made it make less and less sense over time.

PVD has done a few steps to turn themselves around, and they have a larger metro area to cater to than MHT does.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:25 pm

User001 wrote:
I think Thomas Cook could do very well feeding it's short haul network from the USA. AA/BA have actually started seeing a lot of transfers from the AA flights to the BA Cityflyer routes at MAN, so, it's a possible market.

I think TCX's main aim on short haul is selling the holiday packages however.


Agreed about the package aspect being the primary goal of MT short-haul. I'm an outlier wanting to go those places more than the average American would anyways.

I do think its funny they will ticket you to a LH MUC or FRA flight in MAN.

Out of all these new low-cost long hauls - MT gives you the best deal bar none.
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
 
User001
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:33 pm

The one thing I find curious is the fact June, and June only sees extra flights from Thomas Cook to Boston? Is there any particular driver as to why June needs the extra flights?
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:51 pm

To a certain extent, I think that MHT suffers from how close it is to BOS. The other contributing factor is that WN is no longer the least expensive option. My sister's husband and his family live in Exeter. THey are exclusively leisure travelers were dedicated WN passengers from MHT whenoffered lower fares, more flight options and a relatively easy airport experience when compared to BOS. However, WN prices have gone up, flight options have gone down and at the same time, B6 and DL offer them lots of direct flights, with IFE for their two young kids. It's true that the airport experience is harder, mostly due to the distance and the traffic.

In short, I think that MHT's value proposition to customers suffered self inflicted wounds and competitive threats.
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
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:16 pm

airbazar wrote:

"MHT did not do anything to change their product" - Exactly! That's called complacency, laziness, incompetence, take your pick. In business that usually means "the end".
If you think most of these new airlines and routes, especially the LCC ones would be coming to BOS and PVD without incentives then you know very little about the airline industry. But I know that's not true so this discussion is over because now you're just being a troll. New service is very heavily based on incentives provided by the airport and local business community. Massport like most airports has had a long standing incentive package for any new airline and new route. It has paid off huge dividends and continues to do so.


What kind of product was MHT supposed to change to? The only thing MHT is at fault for is not getting in front of their business community and educating passengers to change booking behavior, there was, and still is nothing wrong with the product MHT offers.

As far as this quote goes " If you think most of these new airlines and routes, especially the LCC ones would be coming to BOS and PVD without incentives then you know very little about the airline industry"

When you have worked with nearly every commercial airport in the northeast in a professional capacity, I'll take you more seriously and we will talk.

Airport incentives are regulated far more than you know, and actually play little part in the long term decision for service. They help in maybe pulling the trigger a little sooner, or can give a short term edge over a competitor, but the restrictions placed by the FAA (especially anything beyond fee waivers) do not allow incentives to change the overarching business case for a route.

As for this: " Massport like most airports has had a long standing incentive package for any new airline and new route. It has paid off huge dividends and continues to do so." I think you would be surprised to learn the realities of that statement.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:17 pm

airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:

In Chris' defense, I've been around a.net long enough to know how much he patronized MHT in the past and only started using BOS when the airlines stopped offering the service he needed. He didn't leave MHT. MHT left him.


That's really it. Here's my take on the subject, sent to the Union Leader:

In 2005 Manchester Airport started sliding backwards with fewer flights and smaller planes. At the time (and for several years after), the flagging economy and higher jet-fuel costs made for a plausible explanation as to why many smaller airports saw a large erosion of service.

Better days were ahead, the experts said, and all that lost service would return. And at airports like Providence, it did...and with a vengeance. But Manchester Airport is, at best, stuck in neutral with nothing near what could be described as a 'recovery.' Even tagging the name of the airport with 'Boston' seems to have been one big goose egg.

Secondary Boston airports like Manchester and Providence are valuable assets as Logan continues to choke on its own growth. JetBlue is poised for 200 daily flights at Logan by 2018 while Delta is aiming for 150. At some point traffic is going to have to siphon off to these other airports, which sit 50 miles to the north and south of the city of Boston. One of them is getting the job done; the other is languishing.

One of the big 'Gets' for Providence was Norwegian Airlines, which tabbed the Rhode Island airport for new service to several Western European cities. These were routes that could be reached by the new breed of single-aisle jets such as the 737MAX and upcoming versions of the Airbus A321. But the simple reality is that Manchester Airport wasn't even in the discussion when Norwegian came looking for a Boston-area station. Who knows why. It could be the lack of a customs/immigration setup necessary for many international flights, something Providence willingly invested in while Manchester balked. With the shrinking number of mainline jet flights at Manchester, available gate space certainly isn't a reason why.

Norwegian is just the first salvo. Other European airlines will take delivery of their own new fuel-efficient jets in the years to come. Clearly, to save on costs, these airlines will need to serve Boston from airports other than Logan. First, there's no room at Boston's Terminal E. And second, it's an expensive airport to operate at. So with that as a backdrop, where is the initiative at Manchester Airport? Why is our fine airport not even among the options when new airlines come around looking for a 'Boston' home? It happened with JetBlue, with Norwegian, and most recently with Frontier. All three happily set up shop at Providence. All you can do is tip your cap to them while shaking your head at us.
 
User avatar
pitbosflyer
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:33 pm

The management of an airport can really have an affect on the direction and success of an airport. As a Boston native currently living in Pittsburgh, I have seen this first hand over the last few years. The de-hubbed PIT airport was languishing until a recent management shake up. Now we have new international destinations in Europe and just in the last few years 50 new domestic destinations. Because the new CEO is out there fighting for our airport! Unlike the old guy.

The management at MHT does little to advocate for their airport's success. Instead placing the blame on airlines not having interest. Way back when WOW was looking for placing to launch flights in Boston.....MHT should have been making them an offer so great they couldn't refuse. They could have captured that original excitement in the Boston area about low cost flights across the pond and created some inertia. Or they could have even lured in G4 before they cozied up at PSM.
Last edited by pitbosflyer on Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:34 pm

chrisnh wrote:
airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:

In Chris' defense, I've been around a.net long enough to know how much he patronized MHT in the past and only started using BOS when the airlines stopped offering the service he needed. He didn't leave MHT. MHT left him.


That's really it. Here's my take on the subject, sent to the Union Leader:

In 2005 Manchester Airport started sliding backwards with fewer flights and smaller planes. At the time (and for several years after), the flagging economy and higher jet-fuel costs made for a plausible explanation as to why many smaller airports saw a large erosion of service.

Better days were ahead, the experts said, and all that lost service would return. And at airports like Providence, it did...and with a vengeance. But Manchester Airport is, at best, stuck in neutral with nothing near what could be described as a 'recovery.' Even tagging the name of the airport with 'Boston' seems to have been one big goose egg.

Secondary Boston airports like Manchester and Providence are valuable assets as Logan continues to choke on its own growth. JetBlue is poised for 200 daily flights at Logan by 2018 while Delta is aiming for 150. At some point traffic is going to have to siphon off to these other airports, which sit 50 miles to the north and south of the city of Boston. One of them is getting the job done; the other is languishing.

One of the big 'Gets' for Providence was Norwegian Airlines, which tabbed the Rhode Island airport for new service to several Western European cities. These were routes that could be reached by the new breed of single-aisle jets such as the 737MAX and upcoming versions of the Airbus A321. But the simple reality is that Manchester Airport wasn't even in the discussion when Norwegian came looking for a Boston-area station. Who knows why. It could be the lack of a customs/immigration setup necessary for many international flights, something Providence willingly invested in while Manchester balked. With the shrinking number of mainline jet flights at Manchester, available gate space certainly isn't a reason why.

Norwegian is just the first salvo. Other European airlines will take delivery of their own new fuel-efficient jets in the years to come. Clearly, to save on costs, these airlines will need to serve Boston from airports other than Logan. First, there's no room at Boston's Terminal E. And second, it's an expensive airport to operate at. So with that as a backdrop, where is the initiative at Manchester Airport? Why is our fine airport not even among the options when new airlines come around looking for a 'Boston' home? It happened with JetBlue, with Norwegian, and most recently with Frontier. All three happily set up shop at Providence. All you can do is tip your cap to them while shaking your head at us.


That's not a fair article to MHT because it implies that PVD and MHT markets are equal, when in fact one is 4x larger when looking at catchment area minus inside 128.

I would argue that the 2004/2005 MHT hayday was more of an artificially inflated market for its size and quite frankly MHT that level of service as unsustainable for a market that size. So arguably, rather than wanting to go back to those days, you should be thankful that you had them!

As long as people from NH continue to drive to BOS, MHT will continue to suffer. When you factor in time and parking, it is seldom worth it if you live over an hour away and value your time.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:38 pm

Not only that, but the top guy at MHT is pulling down the top salary of all 'governmental' positions in Manchester. Even the dog catcher can show year-over-year gains. It's entirely unacceptable when your salary points up while your performance points down. I'm glad my tax dollars aren't funding this malfeasance.
 
David_itl
Posts: 6451
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:49 pm

MAN-BOS on Thonas Cook looks to be going up to 5 weekly in sone months. No shortage of seats available from notLondon in the UK.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26559
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:53 pm

VS4ever wrote:
adamh8297 wrote:
As of right now 5 airlines will be on BOS-CDG and LON (all airports) for S18 though 2 cooperate as one (DL + AF or VS)!!!


True, but let's be honest, with AA's loads and general trimming of BOS operations, are they really going to stick around against DL/AF/DY and PF? No way will a 5 way fight from CDG work, I am not even sure a 4 way will work to be honest, but hey, let's give it a shot. I am so happy that BHX comes along for next year. I am seriously considering it if I go back home again.

Looking at the fleet, PF will have 8 planes to do the job. the format appears to be 16 premium, 22 Y+ and 162 Y for a total of 200, DL's 321's in comparison are 20/29 and 143 for a total of 192 with a 31inch pitch in Y, so I suspect 29-30 is what you are going to get in order to fit those extra seats differential. WW's all economy version for 200 is 30-31 all the way.


Maybe, but let's see if PF sticks around first. I wouldn't be surprised if their entire U.S. operation doesn't make it six months.
a.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:30 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
That's not a fair article to MHT because it implies that PVD and MHT markets are equal, when in fact one is 4x larger when looking at catchment area minus inside 128.
[...]
As long as people from NH continue to drive to BOS, MHT will continue to suffer. When you factor in time and parking, it is seldom worth it if you live over an hour away and value your time.

You're making 2 big generalizations here that I think are incorrect.
1) Not everyone in that catchment are looking to fly for vacation, let alone to Europe. There are a lot of poor people in the PVD catchment area. some of the poorest cities in MA are in the PVD catchment area (http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/massachu ... cities-ma/). There is also a large ethnic population whose only TATL flight they will ever take is either to the Azores or Cape Verde. So what I'm trying to say is, it's not so much how many people live in the catchment area as much as how many of those people are going to go visit Paris.
2) Traffic north of Boston is nowhere nearly as bad as traffic south of Boston and long term parking at MHT is comparable to off-airport parking in Boston. I remember when parking at MHT was a marketable advantage. It no longer is. When you're paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars to go on vacation, an extra $50 for parking is not a deal breaker. I live off of I-495 on the NH border, and at 4-6pm which is a typical time for me to fly it takes me less than 1 hour to get to Logan (google is telling 53 mins right now). You can't do that coming from the South to BOS. A comparable distance such as from Attleboro is right now at 1:20 and it will only get worse later on. For people living in SNH, BOS is not that difficult to get to. So because of that, MHT's management needs to work a lot harder to attract business to their airport. But all indications are that they're not even trying. I don't think they even have a plan, or an incentives package to present to prospective airlines.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:45 pm

airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
That's not a fair article to MHT because it implies that PVD and MHT markets are equal, when in fact one is 4x larger when looking at catchment area minus inside 128.
[...]
As long as people from NH continue to drive to BOS, MHT will continue to suffer. When you factor in time and parking, it is seldom worth it if you live over an hour away and value your time.

You're making 2 big generalizations here that I think are incorrect.
1) Not everyone in that catchment are looking to fly for vacation, let alone to Europe. There are a lot of poor people in the PVD catchment area. some of the poorest cities in MA are in the PVD catchment area (http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/massachu ... cities-ma/). There is also a large ethnic population whose only TATL flight they will ever take is either to the Azores or Cape Verde. So what I'm trying to say is, it's not so much how many people live in the catchment area as much as how many of those people are going to go visit Paris.
2) Traffic north of Boston is nowhere nearly as bad as traffic south of Boston and long term parking at MHT is comparable to off-airport parking in Boston. I remember when parking at MHT was a marketable advantage. It no longer is. When you're paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars to go on vacation, an extra $50 for parking is not a deal breaker. I live off of I-495 on the NH border, and at 4-6pm which is a typical time for me to fly it takes me less than 1 hour to get to Logan (google is telling 53 mins right now). You can't do that coming from the South to BOS. A comparable distance such as from Attleboro is right now at 1:20 and it will only get worse later on. For people living in SNH, BOS is not that difficult to get to. So because of that, MHT's management needs to work a lot harder to attract business to their airport. But all indications are that they're not even trying. I don't think they even have a plan, or an incentives package to present to prospective airlines.


You managed to contradict your previous points and prove my previous points here. MHT as it relates to its market is at a significant disadvantage because of traffic and key demographics proximity to logan. For the very situation you described, how is that the fault of MHT management?

I will defer back to my previous statement... air service is a use it or lose it commodity on the whole for a community, simple as that. People in and around MHT aren't using it, and guess whats happening.... I know its rocket science, but I hope you followed.

p.s. its extremely hilarious how you try to knock the PVD market/catchment at every turn and claim to be unbiased. Why don't you instead compare the number of fortune 1,000 companies for each rather than economically depressed pockets of people.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:09 am

What is the weather like between them?

NOT just precipitation, but freezing, fog...

These affect not only the airline operations, and diversions, but also the people traveling to the airport.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:28 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
You managed to contradict your previous points and prove my previous points here. MHT as it relates to its market is at a significant disadvantage because of traffic and key demographics proximity to logan. For the very situation you described, how is that the fault of MHT management?

Like I said before, if you think management plays no role in attracting business to the airport and that traffic just grows organically, then this discussion is pointless.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:30 pm

airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
You managed to contradict your previous points and prove my previous points here. MHT as it relates to its market is at a significant disadvantage because of traffic and key demographics proximity to logan. For the very situation you described, how is that the fault of MHT management?

Like I said before, if you think management plays no role in attracting business to the airport and that traffic just grows organically, then this discussion is pointless.


I guess my degree in airport management and 15 years of experience working with 100+ airports directly with management is also pointless. :)

I never said MHT couldn't be doing more, but there are so many market factors that can not be controlled. It always looks so easy to a simpleton looking in from the outside.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:14 pm

Couple interesting sights @ BOS today:

Omni Air 777 operating what I presume is an Aer Lingus flight to DUB. Aircraft is N846AX. Is Aer Lingus down an A330 or are the loads too much and they needed the extra lift?

Thomas Cook MAN-BOS-MAN operated by a HiFly A340 in a special all black Mirpuri Foundation color scheme. Aircraft is 9H-TQM. Wish I knew how to post my iPhone pic here of it.

This was also my first time seeing terminal E with the renovations all done. Looks SO much better!
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:56 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
You managed to contradict your previous points and prove my previous points here. MHT as it relates to its market is at a significant disadvantage because of traffic and key demographics proximity to logan. For the very situation you described, how is that the fault of MHT management?

Like I said before, if you think management plays no role in attracting business to the airport and that traffic just grows organically, then this discussion is pointless.


I guess my degree in airport management and 15 years of experience working with 100+ airports directly with management is also pointless. :)

I never said MHT couldn't be doing more, but there are so many market factors that can not be controlled. It always looks so easy to a simpleton looking in from the outside.


It's one thing to say an airport should have more service than it has, but here we have a situation where the service WAS there before. I flew on dozens of FULL 757s and A321s to and from MHT so that's proof of the market's capability. People didn't move away (indeed, Rhode Island has been a big LOSER of population), incomes haven't plummeted, and businesses didn't collapse. So if the demographics didn't trend downward, why did the service?
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:08 pm

I know you're being rhetorical, but it's a pretty solid timeline.

1. WN ate those legacies' lunch, so they cut service.

2. WN started service to BOS, so people who drove to MHT specifically for WN didn't anymore.

3. The Ted/Big Dig finished, making BOS easier to get to.

4. The fare/other savings at MHT evaporated when WN cut service.

5. MHT has done nothing to counter this since it happened.

Can MHT sustain a level of service more than ALB (which it seems pretty comparable to these days)? I don't think so. Without B6, they're going nowhere fast.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:28 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
You managed to contradict your previous points and prove my previous points here. MHT as it relates to its market is at a significant disadvantage because of traffic and key demographics proximity to logan. For the very situation you described, how is that the fault of MHT management?

Like I said before, if you think management plays no role in attracting business to the airport and that traffic just grows organically, then this discussion is pointless.


I guess my degree in airport management and 15 years of experience working with 100+ airports directly with management is also pointless. :)

I never said MHT couldn't be doing more, but there are so many market factors that can not be controlled. It always looks so easy to a simpleton looking in from the outside.

I disagree 100% and we'll leave it at that since now you're resorting to personal insults because you disagree with my opinion.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:52 pm

dvincent wrote:
I know you're being rhetorical, but it's a pretty solid timeline.

1. WN ate those legacies' lunch, so they cut service.

2. WN started service to BOS, so people who drove to MHT specifically for WN didn't anymore.

3. The Ted/Big Dig finished, making BOS easier to get to.

4. The fare/other savings at MHT evaporated when WN cut service.

5. MHT has done nothing to counter this since it happened.

Can MHT sustain a level of service more than ALB (which it seems pretty comparable to these days)? I don't think so. Without B6, they're going nowhere fast.



And also, WN's fares crept steadily towards the legacy airlines fares. It's no longer a discount airline. In the context of MHT, WN no longer became a draw in and of itself. Absent any other form of price relief, the price conscious shoppers will go to whichever airport has the cheapest fare. Unfortunately for MHT, the majority of its natural customer base also lives close enough to BOS to make it a viable choice.
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
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:01 pm

dvincent wrote:
I know you're being rhetorical, but it's a pretty solid timeline.

1. WN ate those legacies' lunch, so they cut service.

2. WN started service to BOS, so people who drove to MHT specifically for WN didn't anymore.

3. The Ted/Big Dig finished, making BOS easier to get to.

4. The fare/other savings at MHT evaporated when WN cut service.

5. MHT has done nothing to counter this since it happened.

Can MHT sustain a level of service more than ALB (which it seems pretty comparable to these days)? I don't think so. Without B6, they're going nowhere fast.

tlecam wrote:
And also, WN's fares crept steadily towards the legacy airlines fares. It's no longer a discount airline. In the context of MHT, WN no longer became a draw in and of itself. Absent any other form of price relief, the price conscious shoppers will go to whichever airport has the cheapest fare. Unfortunately for MHT, the majority of its natural customer base also lives close enough to BOS to make it a viable choice.


Yep. That's the bottom line. The world has changed in numerous ways since MHT had its brief moment in the sun, but like other airports - again, MKE being a notable example - the reality in hindsight is that the confluence of a few very unique and, ultimately, very short-lived dynamics created an artificially favorable environment for the airport. Once those dynamics changed, the airport reverted back to its natural role - as a relatively small regional airport serving a relatively small local population base. As soon as BOS area travelers no longer needed to drive somewhere else for lower fares, they didn't - BOS now gets ample low-fare competition from multiple low-fare carriers, including the one that is now - incredible as it may have seemed 10-15 years ago - the airport's largest operator.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:19 pm

tlecam wrote:
And also, WN's fares crept steadily towards the legacy airlines fares.

MHT has NEVER been cheaper than BOS. Even before the big dig. As Chris pointed out, the demographics never changed. The same people that used to fly out of MHT and pay more to do it, are still there. What some of you are saying is that it's OK that people are driving PAST MHT to get to BOS, and spend 1-2 hours in traffic while doing so. Let that sink in.
Yes some things you can't change. I have a friend who travels to Asia for business twice a month and lives right outside Manchester. He used to to fly out of MHT via ORD with UA. Now he drives to BOS to catch the JL non-stop to NRT.

But most of what's been said on this thread is true. But what's also is true is that the management at MHT has done absolutely nothing to change the airport's fortunes and its dependency on WN, and attract new business. Compare that to what has been done at PVD over the last 10 years: They kept their CBP facility open at any cost. They built a new intermodal facility, improved the terminal complex and parking facility. But most importantly, they've expanded their main runway (Opening in Dec '17), without which DY would not be there because the 738MAX will take a penalty on hot days from the current 7,100ft runway. Hot days like the last 3 days. Meanwhile at MHT they changed the airport's name and increased parking prices. They never built international gates even though everyone knew that TATL LCC service was coming to New England, even a simpleton like me knew that. Instead they spent millions on a bridge over the Merrimack that shaves at most 5 minutes off the drive for some people.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:40 pm

commavia wrote:
the reality in hindsight is that the confluence of a few very unique and, ultimately, very short-lived dynamics created an artificially favorable environment for the airport. Once those dynamics changed, the airport reverted back to its natural role - as a relatively small regional airport serving a relatively small local population base. .


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3289
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:44 pm

airbazar wrote:
MHT has NEVER been cheaper than BOS. e.


Pre B6 build up (1998-2005) was an extremely different low fare dynamic in New England. Everyone always says "Since Southwest West to Boston" when in fact it was the B6 build up than opened low fares to dozens and dozens of cities that had no LCC service, even connecting, from BOS before. The WN of that era was also a true LCC, whereas now, unless they have competition, WN is practically a legacy carrier.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
tomaheath
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:58 pm

In regards to MHT I believe just some simple advertising would help. Some colleagues of mine didn't know that there was nonstop flights to Florida just the other day I was telling someone that they could fly nonstop to Tampa to see a pats game. I also traveled to FRA via DTW from Manchester and I had to try and explain to people how I could travel internationally from Manchester not everyone understands how airlines operate.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:24 pm

AirBazar - Apologies, I do not know the MHT market well now, or historically.

I was making more of a general comment about WN and ticket prices.
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
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:44 pm

3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... on-in-w17/
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 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:50 pm

VS4ever wrote:
3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... on-in-w17/


I assume DL is going after cruise traffic with MIA, don't think AA will care though. They've never fought back against any carrier expanding in BOS. DL is clearly targeting B6 with BOS-CHS and BOS-SAV.
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:34 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
airbazar wrote:
MHT has NEVER been cheaper than BOS. e.


Pre B6 build up (1998-2005) was an extremely different low fare dynamic in New England. Everyone always says "Since Southwest West to Boston" when in fact it was the B6 build up than opened low fares to dozens and dozens of cities that had no LCC service, even connecting, from BOS before. The WN of that era was also a true LCC, whereas now, unless they have competition, WN is practically a legacy carrier.


It's not so much that, but when Southwest opened up in Boston it meant the unique reason for going to MHT (and PVD) evaporated. PVD countered by bringing in B6 and some other service. MHT... did nothing. Until they get their act together, they will continue to wither on the vine.

B6 of course was a game changer and upended a lot of markets. On the subject of B6 I think they're missing an opportunity by allowing these low-cost European carriers to bring in transatlantic service to BOS and the surrounding region. Shouldn't they be doing this? Or are they letting others slug it out and they'll pick up the pieces?
From the Mind of Minolta
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:47 pm

aaflyer777 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... on-in-w17/


I assume DL is going after cruise traffic with MIA, don't think AA will care though. They've never fought back against any carrier expanding in BOS. DL is clearly targeting B6 with BOS-CHS and BOS-SAV.


SAV and MIA are new for DL as far as I can recall. CHS has def been operated before by DL from BOS with Saturday only with E75.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:25 pm

VS4ever wrote:
3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... on-in-w17/


Wow! DL seems to be adding to BOS almost every other week - Terminal A now looks like a zoo and very busy! Good for Logan. This is also the first time I think in some years, DL is now going after AA fortress hub in MIA - at this rate, ORD and DCA definitely seems possible. In addition to O&D, maybe an option to go after connections to DL international flights. It would be interesting to see how BOS-LHR on DL looks like in the month of June through October when most of the new flights get started in Sep.

But one thing I have noticed when traveling on DL - the DL inflight magazine does not list BOS as a hub - they list ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, LGA, JFK, LAX and CVG. I think that BOS must have definitely exceeded CVG by now.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26559
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:02 pm

VS4ever wrote:
3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... on-in-w17/



DL does a bit of Saturday-only flying from MIA - CMH, DCA, IND, RDU and now BOS, too.
a.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 pm

VS4ever wrote:
3 small adds from DL that seem to have gone under the radar but could be interesting especially MIA only 1 weekly which is kind of strange but one to watch for if they try and build against AA.


As said, I doubt AA cares about 130 seats per week. Delta does this type of opportunistic, seasonal utilization flying to/from MIA in fuel-friendly winters past - no real news. In fact, given Delta's growing scale in BOS, it's frankly about time. When Delta starts flying BOS-MIA 4x daily, then I think AA will care.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:07 pm

commavia wrote:
As said, I doubt AA cares about 130 seats per week. Delta does this type of opportunistic, seasonal utilization flying to/from MIA in fuel-friendly winters past - no real news. In fact, given Delta's growing scale in BOS, it's frankly about time. When Delta starts flying BOS-MIA 4x daily, then I think AA will care.

I agree with this, I noted in my original post that it's one to watch to see if they would increase it and AA would take notice. 1x weekly is not going to cause a ripple in the space time continuum either in BOS or South Florida.

iyerhari wrote:
But one thing I have noticed when traveling on DL - the DL inflight magazine does not list BOS as a hub - they list ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, LGA, JFK, LAX and CVG. I think that BOS must have definitely exceeded CVG by now.


Sounds like they missed it because Delta.com clearly says BOS is a key hub per their stats and facts info http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts.
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
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:45 pm

airbazar wrote:
tlecam wrote:
And also, WN's fares crept steadily towards the legacy airlines fares.

MHT has NEVER been cheaper than BOS. Even before the big dig. As Chris pointed out, the demographics never changed. The same people that used to fly out of MHT and pay more to do it, are still there. What some of you are saying is that it's OK that people are driving PAST MHT to get to BOS, and spend 1-2 hours in traffic while doing so. Let that sink in.
Yes some things you can't change. I have a friend who travels to Asia for business twice a month and lives right outside Manchester. He used to to fly out of MHT via ORD with UA. Now he drives to BOS to catch the JL non-stop to NRT.

But most of what's been said on this thread is true. But what's also is true is that the management at MHT has done absolutely nothing to change the airport's fortunes and its dependency on WN, and attract new business. Compare that to what has been done at PVD over the last 10 years: They kept their CBP facility open at any cost. They built a new intermodal facility, improved the terminal complex and parking facility. But most importantly, they've expanded their main runway (Opening in Dec '17), without which DY would not be there because the 738MAX will take a penalty on hot days from the current 7,100ft runway. Hot days like the last 3 days. Meanwhile at MHT they changed the airport's name and increased parking prices. They never built international gates even though everyone knew that TATL LCC service was coming to New England, even a simpleton like me knew that. Instead they spent millions on a bridge over the Merrimack that shaves at most 5 minutes off the drive for some people.


Also, that marvelous bridge came almost a DECADE after it was truly really needed. THAT is why the thing is named after a politician.

In the end, Logan and Portland made it easier for people to NOT use MHT. To a lesser extent PSM and ORH did, too. Everything those airports did helped 'shrink' the MHT influence. Additionally this never was and never will be a 'MHT v. PVD' thing except to point out that management at one airport is proactive and the other (unless they hide it well) is not.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:23 am

With all these additions, I still cannot believe DL has not dipped its toe into BOS-AUA yet.

Also checked route shop the other day and noticed ATH updated their profile. They list BOS as largest O+D unserved in N.A. with CHI a close second. Both markets are fairly close to 90 PDEW and I would guess most of it is between April-October. I'm wondering if BOS-ATH is now bigger than BOS-BCN. I think its DY or bust for a potential BOS-ATH route and they haven't appeared to consider long-haul from ATH as of now.
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: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:01 am

adamh8297 wrote:
With all these additions, I still cannot believe DL has not dipped its toe into BOS-AUA yet.

Also checked route shop the other day and noticed ATH updated their profile. They list BOS as largest O+D unserved in N.A. with CHI a close second. Both markets are fairly close to 90 PDEW and I would guess most of it is between April-October. I'm wondering if BOS-ATH is now bigger than BOS-BCN. I think its DY or bust for a potential BOS-ATH route and they haven't appeared to consider long-haul from ATH as of now.


You would think BOS-AUA would work on a Saturday at least? start something.... especially as they just added these 3.

As for ATH as an option, interesting it's so high as 90 PDEW, as you couldn't survive on that alone, what connections does ATH offer that could be a driver to the 200 range which is what you would need to make that route viable. But i do agree a seasonal could do the job at least. DY has it's fingers in so many pies right now, that I am not sure if ATH is on their radar, there's so much dot connecting to do at their other bases and I have to think BCN may get the priority to keep LEVEL from picking it up. Still time for 2018, but my guess is this could be a 2019 route.
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.
 
tomaheath
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:58 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:00 am

I'm sure I just missed the post after dropping some family on off for the FRA flight Saturday noticed it was on a A330. How long has this been? I thought it was always a 744 or 748.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 13

Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:25 pm

tomaheath wrote:
I'm sure I just missed the post after dropping some family on off for the FRA flight Saturday noticed it was on a A330. How long has this been? I thought it was always a 744 or 748.


Since May 14th, the 2nd daily switch to the 333.
http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... a%20boston

LH422 FRA1305 – 1500BOS 74H D
LH420 FRA1755 – 2005BOS 333 D

LH423 BOS1700 – 0555+1FRA 74H D
LH421 BOS2200 – 1100+1FRA 333 D
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