Hello,
It has been said that JetBlue has new plans about service to ORH, I personally think they are adding a flight to either JFK or LAX. An addition to JFK is self-explanatory, but LAX is a possibility especially when you think about the BUF-LAX route. I am curious what your opinions are on this.


Article:

http://www.telegram.com/news/20170227/j ... er-airport

LAX is a complete pipe dream. Probably JFK or some additional Florida flying.

Block wrote:

Hello,
It has been said that JetBlue has new plans about service to ORH, I personally think they are adding a flight to either JFK or LAX. An addition to JFK is self-explanatory, but LAX is a possibility especially when you think about the BUF-LAX route. I am curious what your opinions are on this.


Article:

http://www.telegram.com/news/20170227/j ... er-airport

Look for Tampa, Ft. Myers to get 1 flight each to ORH or some other Sunny spot in Florida. No transcon flights are in the works for ORH.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

Block wrote:

Hello,
It has been said that JetBlue has new plans about service to ORH, I personally think they are adding a flight to either JFK or LAX. An addition to JFK is self-explanatory, but LAX is a possibility especially when you think about the BUF-LAX route. I am curious what your opinions are on this.


Article:

http://www.telegram.com/news/20170227/j ... er-airport

Look for Tampa, Ft. Myers to get 1 flight each to ORH or some other Sunny spot in Florida. No transcon flights are in the works for ORH.

ORH is a market that will stick with the abilities of the E190 as the small plane in the B6 fleet, i agree not going to be transcons. Clearly Massport had something in mind when they agreed to stump up $30M+ for CAT III installation and airport improvements, and this may well be the start of it. I suspect JFK and or more FL options are the way they will go. Loads on the FLL/MCO flights are slipping a bit, so that might help stimulate that a bit, when it seems more folks are using the airport etc.

Here's what I see in the future for JetBlue at ORH.

1 E-190 per day to MCO
1 E-190 per day to FLL

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I can't see them expanding more than what they have now. If anything, I could see a seasonal flight to JFK in similar fashion to the HYA and MVY flights (yes I know they're different types of markets, but that's the type of service I could see if added).

ORH has always had a hard time for passengers getting to the airport as there is no direct route from the highway. Going through narrow city streets and especially in the winter. Bad access turns people off and since PVD is a short drive away and has a dedicated exit to the airport off I-95, it appeals to the local traveler who is looking for less hassle.
ORH needs a large legacy carrier with service to a hub airport such as AA to PHL or DL to DTW.
Florida routes are usually low yield and not used by business flyers.

Jetblue is not successful in ORH so I'm curious what it could be. Maybe a big hype over upgaging the aircraft? Or shifting MCO/FLL to bleed less money?

Hopefully its JFK and not just TPA or RSW. I wouldn't 100% rule out SJU - 45K Puerto Ricans in metro Worcester, Cruise traffic, Caribbean connections.

Whatever MASSPORT forces them to fly to get gates at Logan.

That's why I'm confused... what favor does Jetblue need now... MCO/FLL can barely break 80% on the e190

I'll stick with my two guesses with the wildcard of a maintenance base

RL757PVD wrote:

That's why I'm confused... what favor does Jetblue need now

Make AS/VX uncomfortable as hell in BOS ... oh wait that already happened.

RL757PVD wrote:

MCO/FLL can barely break 80% on the e190

Do we know the average fares? From just checking one-way prices it looks like its a struggle to fill and/or yield well mid week.

adamh8297 wrote:

Hopefully its JFK and not just TPA or RSW. I wouldn't 100% rule out SJU - 45K Puerto Ricans in metro Worcester, Cruise traffic, Caribbean connections.

No way SJU happens when BDL has 1-2 flights a day depending on time of year and more at BOS.

I'm betting on some 1-off spring break flights although it's sort of short notice. Worcester has a lot of colleges and if deals are hard to find at Logan, why not add a couple of Saturday only flights.

I just don't understand why JetBlue would provide service to ORH. We keep reading more and more about how BOS is pulling more pax away from other locals like MHT and PVD. If that is really true, why would B6 decide to start splitting Boston area traffic with yet another airport? To me it's one of the same reasons why JetBlue has never touched ISP. No reason to split their traffic away from a hub.

FARmd90 wrote:

canyonblue17 wrote:

I just don't understand why JetBlue would provide service to ORH. We keep reading more and more about how BOS is pulling more pax away from other locals like MHT and PVD. If that is really true, why would B6 decide to start splitting Boston area traffic with yet another airport? To me it's one of the same reasons why JetBlue has never touched ISP. No reason to split their traffic away from a hub.

I would think after a certain point for B6 to keep Boston growing like they have been/ want to, they will need to try to start splitting off some flights to outlying airports that can support it. To free up seats at the main airport to grow O&D/connection pax if needed. And also give those customers flying out of ORH/PVD more convenient options to use their own hometown airport.

Through Aug 16, B6's average loads are in the low 80's domestically on a rolling 12 month basis, which means they still have some room to grow, however if you pull out YTD the Cape runs and the New York/DC runs which rely more on frequency than anything else, that number increases about 3%, means they still technically have about 1m seats to fill at BOS based on their current departure profile (this is prior to the LGA and ATL additions), but let's be honest it's not realistic that they are going to sell out every seat on every plane all the time. Clearly B6 believe there is still expansion potential with their gate structure at BOS, especially once EK and the other internationals potentially return to E. and if AS/VX do return to B, that frees up most of the 40-42 gates as well, leaving only 9K and SY in C. 9K don't take up much room and in fact share C27 as it is as i've used it for a B6 flight while 9K was working alongside and SY's flight schedule isn't exactly taxing.

What I am basically saying in, there are still plenty of opportunities for B6 to continue to grow at B6 to get their stated aim of 200 per day.

Now what do they do about ORH, loads on the MCO/FLL routes have slipped back by about 1% to 83%, which is still ok, FLL is doing ok, but MCO seems to be dialling back a bit, not in huge chunks, but directionally downwards. As I stated earlier. Massport have kicked in a bundle of money for CAT III and airport improvements and while i agree the location and access pieces are definitely an issue as many have noted, Massport are not going to kick that kind of money in without a plan (or some critics may say that's exactly what they are doing). In the past ORH has seen upwards of 300K pax a year flowing through it i believe, with these two routes alone, it's running around 117K, so in theory there is room to grow.

If, as I suspect Massport are going to kick some more money into ORH through incentives, maybe B6 have taken the bait and will send another E190 or two ORH's way to expand to JFK and others. But it will be limited, given the constraints and other options available (PVD and the like). Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

I truly hope it is an expansion, but that remains to be seen..

From the article:
Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and officials from the Massachusetts Port Authority and JetBlue Airways Corp. are scheduled to be at Worcester Regional Airport on Tuesday for an announcement about air service.

No way the Lt Gov is there if this is bad news

https://worcestermag.com/2017/02/27/upd ... ster/49672

Looks like it's JFK.

I wonder what B6 is getting from Massport in return.

I wonder if JFK will be replacing florida service... having less aircraft tied up on ORH could stem some of the bleeding while still selling it as a positive

I wouldn't be surprised if BWI or DCA service is offered. Anyway, happy to see other parts of Mass being invested in - our tax dollars being put to work.

I am curious why everyone feels JetBlue's ORH flights are poor performers when they compare load-factor wise similar to their Boston routes, have higher fares, and do this with a reputation of having a number of cancelled or diverted flights. B6 doesn't overbook, so they don't fill as many seats as some other airlines do. Their Florida service has been building up a nice little customer base, I don't see them wanting to kill off this route. And once teh Cat III is in placd I bet there will be a lot fewer cancellations and probably much better schedules.

As for the JFK announcement, I cwertainly hope that is what it is, but I would not count on the reliability of MassLive to know ahead of time that that is the definite next route.

Massport's Chief Executive Thomas Glynn said recently that the ORH flights were some of Jetblue's best performers in their network.

I don't know why everyone acts like they are a total failure.

"JetBlue is running two flights a day to Florida from Worcester and they’re almost always full. JetBlue told us last year they were two of the most successful flights it has in its system. So that investment, we believe, has paid off. "

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

Announced that JetBlue will start-up ORH-JFK at some undetermined date in the future:

"The route will run on a daily basis, but don’t get too excited. There is no scheduled date for when it will start operating. First, work must be completed to install a new $30 million landing system that will allow pilots to land in low-visibility conditions. That is expected by the end of the year, according to Massport spokeswoman Kelly Smith."

Also keep in mind that from ORH, right now you can get to MCO, FLL, and a couple of other Caribbean airports. By having a flight to JFK, you can now connect to most of the B6 system while avoiding Boston.

cloudboy wrote:

Also keep in mind that from ORH, right now you can get to MCO, FLL, and a couple of other Caribbean airports. By having a flight to JFK, you can now connect to most of the B6 system while avoiding Boston.

You can avoid BOS by connecting in JFK What a dream!

pitbosflyer wrote:

Massport's Chief Executive Thomas Glynn said recently that the ORH flights were some of Jetblue's best performers in their network.

I don't know why everyone acts like they are a total failure.

"JetBlue is running two flights a day to Florida from Worcester and they’re almost always full. JetBlue told us last year they were two of the most successful flights it has in its system. So that investment, we believe, has paid off. "

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

See my analysis above,they are not almost always full, but they are not complete dogs either, you also have to remember these are E190's at 100 seats rather than A320's with 150 and they get around 83-85 PDEW on both flights.I would hardly say they are the best performers on B6's network in terms of butts on seats, but then I don't have access to yield information that B6 and to a certain extent Massport do too. If they were going gangbusters, I would argue the flights would have been upgraded to 320's, but at this point they have not. Maybe when the CAT III is finished that might happen. We shall see.(but that was probably the reason they have not been up to now)

I've never thought the ORH flights have been a total failure, I do think they have been supported by incentives and FLL is doing better than MCO right now, but the rolling averages have increased from about 115K to over 118K and I think that says they are being supported by the local community too.

It's clear now what Massport's strategy was. Install the CAT III and the improvements (probably at the request of B6 by the looks of things) and with that in place, then the routes will start to come in. JFK will be the first and that looks to be a 2018 start based on the the timing of the work completion.

If the stated aim is to get back to at least the 300K pax per annum level, then we are probably looking at 4 more routes total to come with JFK being the first.

VS4ever wrote:

See my analysis above,they are not almost always full, but they are not complete dogs either,

pitbosflyer wrote:

Massport's Chief Executive Thomas Glynn said recently that the ORH flights were some of Jetblue's best performers in their network.

I don't know why everyone acts like they are a total failure.

"JetBlue is running two flights a day to Florida from Worcester and they’re almost always full. JetBlue told us last year they were two of the most successful flights it has in its system. So that investment, we believe, has paid off. "

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell

That's a bald-faced lie unless B6 is not reporting accurately their results to DOT. MCO is a little better, but ORH-FLL is one of their worst routes.

http://sponsored.bostonglobe.com/rockla ... nsoredWell[/quote]
That's a bald-faced lie unless B6 is not reporting accurately their results to DOT. MCO is a little better, but ORH-FLL is one of their worst routes.[/quote]

While I know we are not supposed to promote outside websites, it's relevant to the discussion, here's my analysis for B6 at BOS and ORH (through Aug 16)

BOS - B6
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... o0/pubhtml

ORH
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... M/pubhtml#

Again, this is only as good as the numbers reported to the DOT AND cannot speak to yields, but these are the numbers reported. As you can see MCO is slightly worse than FLL and they are slightly on the low side compared to the equivalent BOS flights,

It is kind of interesting that ORH, as a small time airport has year round FLL service, but MKE doesn't and the airports are about the same distance to FLL.

How about ORH-BWI? BWI being a gateway for Washington DC, with some connections to the MCO, FLL flights.

JFK has more connections, but it's is shorter with people possibly sticking with ground transportation, so lower and weaker O&D, plus it would consume B6's JFK slots so B6 has an opportunity cost with tying them up for ORH. Plus if someone does ORH-JFK-LAX on B6, it's a pax that might have otherwise supported B6 on BOS-LAX, so kind of a net loss if too many connections become available via ORH-JFK diminishing the value of using BOS for nonstops.

cloudboy wrote:

I am curious why everyone feels JetBlue's ORH flights are poor performers when they compare load-factor wise similar to their Boston routes, have higher fares, and do this with a reputation of having a number of cancelled or diverted flights.

The ORH flights don't have higher fares. In Q2 of 2016 (most recent figures), the average B6 fares were:

ORH-MCO: $176
BOS-MCO: $220
ORH-FLL: $152
BOS-FLL: $188

Worse yet, the ORH flights are on the high-cost E190. Even PVD-FLL outperforms ORD-FLL and they go head-to-head with WN at PVD, although PVD-MCO has lower fares than ORH-MCO.

phluser wrote:

Plus if someone does ORH-JFK-LAX on B6, it's a pax that might have otherwise supported B6 on BOS-LAX, so kind of a net loss if too many connections become available via ORH-JFK diminishing the value of using BOS for nonstops.

You could say that of just about any market from ORH, though. And a passenger flying ORH-BWI-FLL/MCO would take away from the ORH non-stops and the BOS non-stops.

I've got to think there is something more going on here than meets the eye. Loads on current flights appear to be "OK" but not great enough to demand a larger plane. Fares appear to be competitive, but not suggestive of being high yielding. Adding flights to JFK may give good connections, but risks some cannibalization of BOS service. I think ORH needs B6 to fly to JFK more than B6 needs it and MassPort operates ORH. Could a JFK flight be a delayed part of the original deal with MassPort that would kick-in when the Cat III is operable? It doesn't seem like a logical add for B6 since as mentioned up-thread as it takes JFK resources that are highly in demand for what is very likely to be very low O&D. Could this be a JFK one-stop flight to MCO. The quote of the announcement above "The route will run on a daily basis, but don’t get too excited." doesn't fill me with confidence that it will run multiple times daily.

MaverickM11 wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

Also keep in mind that from ORH, right now you can get to MCO, FLL, and a couple of other Caribbean airports. By having a flight to JFK, you can now connect to most of the B6 system while avoiding Boston.

You can avoid BOS by connecting in JFK What a dream!

You're not avoiding BOS (Logan), you are avoiding driving into Logan. For people from Worcester, especially west of Worcester, it is a good two hours plus just to drive in, add the hour and a half that most people arrive early, and you are looking at 3 1/2 hours. Compare that to the 30 minutes and max an hour that you need for most people for Worcester, you are saving a good 2 hours.

ScottB wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

I am curious why everyone feels JetBlue's ORH flights are poor performers when they compare load-factor wise similar to their Boston routes, have higher fares, and do this with a reputation of having a number of cancelled or diverted flights.

The ORH flights don't have higher fares. In Q2 of 2016 (most recent figures), the average B6 fares were:

ORH-MCO: $176
BOS-MCO: $220
ORH-FLL: $152
BOS-FLL: $188

Worse yet, the ORH flights are on the high-cost E190. Even PVD-FLL outperforms ORD-FLL and they go head-to-head with WN at PVD, although PVD-MCO has lower fares than ORH-MCO.

phluser wrote:

Plus if someone does ORH-JFK-LAX on B6, it's a pax that might have otherwise supported B6 on BOS-LAX, so kind of a net loss if too many connections become available via ORH-JFK diminishing the value of using BOS for nonstops.

You could say that of just about any market from ORH, though. And a passenger flying ORH-BWI-FLL/MCO would take away from the ORH non-stops and the BOS non-stops.

Have you regularly shopped for those routes?

JetBlue offers some real great prices on those routes for certain days and dates. But overall, most people find that there is a significant difference when you cant be flexible between ORH and BOS/PVD. For many it is still worth it to fly from ORH, as transportation costs from Worcester to BOS alone easily add a hundred or more to the trip cost. It is one thing in BOS for instance where you have a lot of flights to choose from. In ORH, once the few cheap seats are sold on that flight, that is it for the day. That has been a consistent criticism from area residents since the beginning. No one cares about averages or the lowest published fare, they care about what it is going to cost them for the dates they want to travel.

As a comment to loss from Boston, keep in mind a number pf people aren't looking at ORH vs BOS, but rather ORH vs PVD or BDL. People out here hate driving into the city. They will pay more to avoid it.

I think JFK is a perfect and smart addition for ORH. It gives travelers access to pretty much the entire jetBlue network. Now they have one stop connections to the west coast, Chicago, other Florida destinations (JAX, DAB, PBI, RSW, SRQ, and TPA) and well, basically everything. I think they can fill E190s to JFK for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them forego MCO and FLL in lieu of JFK only. I don't expect them to do that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

There's another issue possibly at play here. Maybe B6 don't necessarily care as much about the bleed from BOS, because of the feed they are getting for the international connections. So they might be able to have it both ways here. Capture the O&D from ORH, some of which might have gone to BOS to pick up their flights, (although that nice trip up the Pike does suck to say the least) and create some space for additional feed from elsewhere. now whether it is either viable or cost effective to do that only time will tell. That is, apart from any wads of greenbacks Massport might be waving in front of them

This may be a dumb question, but how much will a Cat III ILS help B6 at ORH? Don't airlines still have minimums and I thought it was FedEx and UPS that really benefited from a full Cat III. I would guess that B6 would benefit a fair bit, but do they really need a Cat III over say a Cat II?

LotsaRunway wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but how much will a Cat III ILS help B6 at ORH? Don't airlines still have minimums and I thought it was FedEx and UPS that really benefited from a full Cat III. I would guess that B6 would benefit a fair bit, but do they really need a Cat III over say a Cat II?

I don't know what the question is here. No, FedEx and UPS don't somehow have lower minimums then B6 when flying a cat iii approach. Jetblue has the lowest allowable cat iii ILS minimums at 600/600/600rvr... via auto land on the a320/21, and hand flown HUD on the e90, which is the same as everyone else. A Cat ii gets you down to 100DH and 1200rvr, normal ILS 1800rvr. ORH weather often gets below 1000rvr due to the platue the airport sits on, so a cat ii ILS wouldn't help you.

And sorry, cat ii depending on equipment is between 1000 and 1600rvr.

Investing in ORH is a great idea. It helps the entire Western and Central Mass area. Tons of colleges in Central Mass can benefit from service to JFK and beyond. Even if Massport is helping jetBlue with the flights, it is a support well-spent. The CAT III has been mentioned many times before here, I am just surprised it has taken that long to implement. Is it a time consuming process or is it just a budget issue?

According to the Telegram http://www.telegram.com/news/20170228/g ... yc-planned), the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Can't say I am a huge fan of the times, but given that it will be a 15 minute drive versus a 2 hour drive, and only have to get there maybe 45 minutes ahead, I will probably utilize it fairly often. Hopefully they are a little more consistent with their times than the ORH flight.

cloudboy wrote:

According to the Telegram http://www.telegram.com/news/20170228/g ... yc-planned), the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Can't say I am a huge fan of the times, but given that it will be a 15 minute drive versus a 2 hour drive, and only have to get there maybe 45 minutes ahead, I will probably utilize it fairly often. Hopefully they are a little more consistent with their times than the ORH flight.

Probably at the gate in JFK around 7am, that opens a ton of connection opportunities. And is JFK even slot controlled at those hours (~7am arrival ~10pm dep)? If so I'm sure there are plenty of available slots so shouldn't be a big deal.

cloudboy wrote:

Have you regularly shopped for those routes?

JetBlue offers some real great prices on those routes for certain days and dates. But overall, most people find that there is a significant difference when you cant be flexible between ORH and BOS/PVD. For many it is still worth it to fly from ORH, as transportation costs from Worcester to BOS alone easily add a hundred or more to the trip cost. It is one thing in BOS for instance where you have a lot of flights to choose from. In ORH, once the few cheap seats are sold on that flight, that is it for the day. That has been a consistent criticism from area residents since the beginning. No one cares about averages or the lowest published fare, they care about what it is going to cost them for the dates they want to travel.

You are talking about anecdotes and I am talking about statistics. Sure, it's going to be pricier to fly on certain days from ORH. But that's also true from BOS, and the statistical data on fares points to the fact that it is regularly more expensive to fly to & from BOS than ORH. The numbers on average fares don't point to customers being willing to pay more for service at ORH. Maybe you can get a cheaper flight at BOS on a given day if you're willing to accept an unattractive schedule, but then that doesn't point to being willing to pay for the convenience of ORH. On the whole, B6 gets higher fares at BOS and they do so with lower-unit-cost aircraft to boot!

cloudboy wrote:

According to the Telegram http://www.telegram.com/news/20170228/g ... yc-planned), the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Can't say I am a huge fan of the times, but given that it will be a 15 minute drive versus a 2 hour drive, and only have to get there maybe 45 minutes ahead, I will probably utilize it fairly often.

While the drive from Worcester to BOS can be two hours at rush hour, the drive has gotten a lot easier with the Ted Williams Tunnel and open road tolling on the Mass Pike. I'd say that most of the day (outside of rush hour) the drive can be done in under an hour, especially at the hours being considered for the JFK flight.

flyby519 wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

According to the Telegram http://www.telegram.com/news/20170228/g ... yc-planned), the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Can't say I am a huge fan of the times, but given that it will be a 15 minute drive versus a 2 hour drive, and only have to get there maybe 45 minutes ahead, I will probably utilize it fairly often. Hopefully they are a little more consistent with their times than the ORH flight.

Probably at the gate in JFK around 7am, that opens a ton of connection opportunities. And is JFK even slot controlled at those hours (~7am arrival ~10pm dep)? If so I'm sure there are plenty of available slots so shouldn't be a big deal.

It's all about the connections here. If you're an O&D traveler between Worcester and New York, you're far better off driving given that it's not that hard to make the drive in under 3 hours. By the time you leave home to get to the airport (~15 minutes), check-in/board (we will be generous and say ~45 minutes), fly (~1 hour), and then get into Manhattan (~45 min minimum if you're lucky), the time saving is null and you lose all flexibility in terms of when you can go.

That being said, the times do open up most of the Caribbean, Florida (other destinations, plus another option to MCO/FLL), California and Upstate NY (if you want to avoid the long drive on I-90) quite well.

N757ST wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but how much will a Cat III ILS help B6 at ORH? Don't airlines still have minimums and I thought it was FedEx and UPS that really benefited from a full Cat III. I would guess that B6 would benefit a fair bit, but do they really need a Cat III over say a Cat II?

I don't know what the question is here. No, FedEx and UPS don't somehow have lower minimums then B6 when flying a cat iii approach. Jetblue has the lowest allowable cat iii ILS minimums at 600/600/600rvr... via auto land on the a320/21, and hand flown HUD on the e90, which is the same as everyone else. A Cat ii gets you down to 100DH and 1200rvr, normal ILS 1800rvr. ORH weather often gets below 1000rvr due to the platue the airport sits on, so a cat ii ILS wouldn't help you.

Thanks for answering my question. I wasn't trying to imply that FedEx itself has lower technical minimums than Cat III provides, only that I'm aware of examples when FedEx and UPS actually land in conditions that many passenger airlines avoid. Because ILS Cat III is there doesn't mean every aircraft is going to take full advantage of it's limits. From what I think I understand, different airlines set their own policies as to how close to the ILS equipment minimums they are willing to land, and I suspect that equipment type, pilot training and pilot judgement have a role in this as well. It's likely a safety decision. During foggy weather you can identify on flightaware cancelled flights, diversions and turn-backs differing for different airlines and aircraft type. You can even see two similar planes from the same airline where one diverts and one lands. It makes me curious why. Flights are affected even though conditions are within ILS technical limits. Because I'm not really sure what airlines set for policy on this matter, I'm asking the question. If E190s have higher limits than the A320s, then that means the E190 B6 flights to ORH would not be as reliable that if A320s were scheduled. If those B6 E190 limits were near what a Cat II ILS system provides, then does B6 really need a Cat III vs a Cat II. Like I said, I don't know, just asking to learn.

cloudboy wrote:

According to the Telegram http://www.telegram.com/news/20170228/g ... yc-planned), the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Can't say I am a huge fan of the times, but given that it will be a 15 minute drive versus a 2 hour drive, and only have to get there maybe 45 minutes ahead, I will probably utilize it fairly often. Hopefully they are a little more consistent with their times than the ORH flight.

Actually, if only one flight to JFK is scheduled, I think these times are great as long as you are connecting domestically.

VS4ever wrote:

Enilria wrote:

That's a bald-faced lie unless B6 is not reporting accurately their results to DOT. MCO is a little better, but ORH-FLL is one of their worst routes.

While I know we are not supposed to promote outside websites, it's relevant to the discussion, here's my analysis for B6 at BOS and ORH (through Aug 16)

BOS - B6
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... o0/pubhtml

ORH
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... M/pubhtml#

Again, this is only as good as the numbers reported to the DOT AND cannot speak to yields, but these are the numbers reported. As you can see MCO is slightly worse than FLL and they are slightly on the low side compared to the equivalent BOS flights,

That's great that you copied T100 into a spreadsheet. There's also DB1B. The fares on FLL are much worse than MCO. And then there's E190 CASM to throw into the mix. You can't only look at a "full" LF and think that means anything.

cloudboy wrote:

the flight will leave around 6am and return around 11pm, and will start once the Cat. III landing is in place. So, realistically that probably means early next year.

Free slots! A big vote of confidence. This won't connect roundtrip to any of their intl partners. It's just gonna carry a bunch of cr@p Florida and whatever local they can pull off with 1 RT to JFK. Anyway, this is a political flight, not for profit. Keeping Massport happy is in their interest.

ScottB wrote:

You could say that of just about any market from ORH, though. And a passenger flying ORH-BWI-FLL/MCO would take away from the ORH non-stops and the BOS non-stops.

B6 wants to keep some nominal presence at ORH, but not offer too much from it. It's like a little sampler of B6, but if one wants more B6, head to BOS.

ScottB wrote:

cloudboy wrote:

Have you regularly shopped for those routes?

JetBlue offers some real great prices on those routes for certain days and dates. But overall, most people find that there is a significant difference when you cant be flexible between ORH and BOS/PVD. For many it is still worth it to fly from ORH, as transportation costs from Worcester to BOS alone easily add a hundred or more to the trip cost. It is one thing in BOS for instance where you have a lot of flights to choose from. In ORH, once the few cheap seats are sold on that flight, that is it for the day. That has been a consistent criticism from area residents since the beginning. No one cares about averages or the lowest published fare, they care about what it is going to cost them for the dates they want to travel.

You are talking about anecdotes and I am talking about statistics. Sure, it's going to be pricier to fly on certain days from ORH. But that's also true from BOS, and the statistical data on fares points to the fact that it is regularly more expensive to fly to & from BOS than ORH. The numbers on average fares don't point to customers being willing to pay more for service at ORH. Maybe you can get a cheaper flight at BOS on a given day if you're willing to accept an unattractive schedule, but then that doesn't point to being willing to pay for the convenience of ORH. On the whole, B6 gets higher fares at BOS and they do so with lower-unit-cost aircraft to boot!

Believe it or not, passengers do not do studies before booking a flight to figure out who on average has the lowest fare or has teh overall better percentage of on time flights. They know what their experience, and what their family's and friend's experiences, are. That has been teh huge problem facing Worcester - you can tout all teh figures you want. What you need to fix is experience and perception. Simple fact is too many people see lower prices from Boston, and have heard too many horror stories about diversions and cancelled flight. And again you can quote whatever you want for statistics, but I know that most of the time when I look at flying from ORH over BOS, ORH comes in more expensive. And that is the same story I hear from everyone else.

LotsaRunway wrote:

N757ST wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but how much will a Cat III ILS help B6 at ORH? Don't airlines still have minimums and I thought it was FedEx and UPS that really benefited from a full Cat III. I would guess that B6 would benefit a fair bit, but do they really need a Cat III over say a Cat II?

I don't know what the question is here. No, FedEx and UPS don't somehow have lower minimums then B6 when flying a cat iii approach. Jetblue has the lowest allowable cat iii ILS minimums at 600/600/600rvr... via auto land on the a320/21, and hand flown HUD on the e90, which is the same as everyone else. A Cat ii gets you down to 100DH and 1200rvr, normal ILS 1800rvr. ORH weather often gets below 1000rvr due to the platue the airport sits on, so a cat ii ILS wouldn't help you.

Thanks for answering my question. I wasn't trying to imply that FedEx itself has lower technical minimums than Cat III provides, only that I'm aware of examples when FedEx and UPS actually land in conditions that many passenger airlines avoid. Because ILS Cat III is there doesn't mean every aircraft is going to take full advantage of it's limits. From what I think I understand, different airlines set their own policies as to how close to the ILS equipment minimums they are willing to land, and I suspect that equipment type, pilot training and pilot judgement have a role in this as well. It's likely a safety decision. During foggy weather you can identify on flightaware cancelled flights, diversions and turn-backs differing for different airlines and aircraft type. You can even see two similar planes from the same airline where one diverts and one lands. It makes me curious why. Flights are affected even though conditions are within ILS technical limits. Because I'm not really sure what airlines set for policy on this matter, I'm asking the question. If E190s have higher limits than the A320s, then that means the E190 B6 flights to ORH would not be as reliable that if A320s were scheduled. If those B6 E190 limits were near what a Cat II ILS system provides, then does B6 really need a Cat III vs a Cat II. Like I said, I don't know, just asking to learn.

Some airlines have not committed the funds required to certify as cat ii or iii capable, and some don't have the equipment to fly cat ii or iii. All of Jetblue's aircraft are fully cat iii certified and capable, all the pilots are trained for 600/600/600 landings and 500/500/500 takeoffs. Now, there are sometimes other factors that don't allow a cat iii landing. These include crosswind limits, windshear reports, and runway contamination. Worchester is limited generally due to fog, which usually isn't associated with the above weather limits. Worchester getting a cat iii ILS will allow a much more reliable operation.

FYI, the only reason there are any limits at all with Cat iii ILS landings is it's damn hard to find the taxiways below 600rvr.

N757ST wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

This may be a dumb question, but how much will a Cat III ILS help B6 at ORH? Don't airlines still have minimums and I thought it was FedEx and UPS that really benefited from a full Cat III. I would guess that B6 would benefit a fair bit, but do they really need a Cat III over say a Cat II?

I don't know what the question is here. No, FedEx and UPS don't somehow have lower minimums then B6 when flying a cat iii approach. Jetblue has the lowest allowable cat iii ILS minimums at 600/600/600rvr... via auto land on the a320/21, and hand flown HUD on the e90, which is the same as everyone else. A Cat ii gets you down to 100DH and 1200rvr, normal ILS 1800rvr. ORH weather often gets below 1000rvr due to the platue the airport sits on, so a cat ii ILS wouldn't help you.

Just an FYI but RVR 300 FT or 75 M is used by other US airlines, 600 RVR must be Jet Blues lowest RVR. Lower than 300 RVR is available to everybody but they need to certify taxiing in zero visibility.