2018 KMHT Growth opportunities

georgiabill · Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:08 am

I am an unabashed KMHT supporter. I am not pleased with the three stooges of airport management and their see no evil,speak no evil and hear no approach to management. After all they brought solar panels to top story of parking garage,not only making it difficult to observe from tower,but loss of parking revenues. One of their out of the box plans for KMHT and like everything else has done nothing for the airport.
That said I am hoping in 2018 maybe a fall launch we will see AA add MHT_ORD service 2x daily on E-175's. It certainly would hurt the UA competition on smaller rj's. As was pointed out on another thread WN has MHT- MDW market. AA will offer as many if not more connections at ORD. I would like AA to restore atleast 1 mainline MHT-PHL and 1 MHT-CLT. Most likely wishful thinking but depending on departure times and connections could work. Certainly during peak travel peroids.
For WN I would like to see them bring back DEN or PHX non stop service. Perhaps as more Max arrive for WN. Restoration of FLL daily service and a seasonal service to RSW.
With the growth of KBOS I wonder if we could see growth from Fed EX and UPS and perhaps Amazon prime for northern New England service?
ULCC F9 or NK trying to stimulate the market.

Your thoughts

chrisnh · Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:19 am

I used to be ‘unabashed’ like you, but as a business traveler I go where the flight flexibility is in my favor should something go wrong on either leg of my journey. My trip to New Orleans last week was an exception because Southwest gave me options to choose from (I flew MHT-TPA-MSY-MDW-MHT). But overall, I happily use Logan for all non-WN flying.

As for the ‘blame management’ philosophy, I subscribe to it as well. The ‘excuse’ that MHT is too close to BOS is easily dispatched thanks to PVD, which is the same 50 miles away. The excuse that the market isn’t there is easily dispatched thanks to my log of a dozen UA 757 flights I took between MHT and ORD which were all full or nearly so.

What you have at MHT are a handful of quasi-governmental hacks each pulling down big salaries while keeping their incompetence out of view.

Things you CANNOT blame for the MHT death-spiral: the infrastructure, road access, the market demographics, runway length, instrumentation. Basically everything is pristine and suitable except for a stubborn refusal by these high-paid hacks to build out a customs and immigration asset. At a time when the new 737MAX and NEO aircraft are coming into the fleets of airlines that need airports less costly than BOS to fly them to.

pwm2txlhopper · Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:35 am

chrisnh wrote:
The excuse that the market isn’t there is easily dispatched thanks to my log of a dozen UA 757 flights I took between MHT and ORD which were all full or nearly so.
.

I use to fly on full DL 757's from PWM to BOS. I also remember being on full UA 727s going PWM-MHT-ORD. And full flights on other mainline aircraft on routes no longer served from PWM. No year round service on mainline UA here for 17 years, now.

Times change. Just because the flights from past years were full, doesn't mean the airlines made money of the flight.

MHT is about the same sized city as PWM, 75 miles east. LCC's arriving at PWM didn't kill MHT, but when it become the same price or less to fly from PWM, many traveler's in the greater Portland area and Southern Maine abandoned making to trek to MHT and BOS. I haven't used either in ten years.

Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006.

tomaheath · Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:50 am

Thanks for starting this topic. I’m not a business traveler and I’m a little new to the game so I don’t bring much to the table. I personally will spend more to fly from Manchester just like I’ll spend more to buy something made in the US instead of over seas with in reason of course.
After going to a couple meetings presented by airport management one thing that really stuck in my head is that they were comparing MHT and PVD that they more or less grew together and declined together I’d be curious on what the say now with what’s happened at PVD in 2017.
I don’t thing we’ll ever see 3 times daily to ORD on UA 757s again but one single poorly time RJ is unacceptable. WN seems happy with its 10 flights per day in the winter 15 ish in the summer. DL hasn’t sent any mainlines to DTW in a while and I believe LGA goes 2 times daily. AA has been somewhat nice to Manchester lately with the Airbus to CLE (or 3 times daily) and soon a couple of E190s to philly. In another topic someone mentioned the state running all the airports in the state just as Massport does not sure exactly how’d that work out but it’s an interesting idea. I do believe those solar panels were designed by a company hired by the airport to make sure there wasn’t going to be any issues I also believe that same company realigned them and added more to make up for the lose of direct sunshine at there expense.
My MHT wishlist.
WN FLL,DEN
AA ORD, mainline to PHL
DL second ATL, MSP
UA anything really more ORD fights
B6 FLL,MCO,JFK

georgiabill · Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:49 pm

I agree with tomaheath a second daily mainline to ATL would be a great add. I would gladly take a E-175 if mainline was not an option. A better option would be morning nonstop before 7:00AM, a midday nonstop, late afternoon early evening nonstop between MHT-ATL on DL . Even if all 3 flights were on E-175'S. DTW should have atleast 1 mainline DTW service if not two, especially during the summer. MSP E175 or CRJ-700 summer season could work. NW made 2 flights work seasonally and 1 through holiday season.
I think NK or F9 could make MHT work. FLL, TPA and RSW for Florida routes. CLE,DTW ORD or DEN might be viable routes to consider as well. These routes might work 3x or 4x wekly.
In the short term any growth from MHT may come from frieght business. With BOS growing I can see PVD and MHT splitting the air cargo capacity. Especially should Prime operate from MHT.

Runway28L · Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:34 pm

It really wouldn't be a big deal if AA and UA were mostly flying E175s into MHT. Those airplanes are super comfortable and fun to fly on. Much different story than flying on an ERJ or CRJ.

Glad most of my PHL/DCA-MHT trips were on the 170/175. Nowadays like many others, I just fly to BOS on JetBlue (who doesn't fly to MHT) and drive up since it's less expensive.

RL757PVD · Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:56 pm

Runway28L wrote:

Glad most of my PHL/DCA-MHT trips were on the 170/175. Nowadays like many others, I just fly to BOS on JetBlue (who doesn't fly to MHT) and drive up since it's less expensive.

This is why MHT has limited service.

Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

For MHT 2018 I would hope for:
2nd ATL summer seasonal
Sustained CLT mainline
Larger RJs to EWR

If they can pull off 2/3 of that list while keeping the rest, id call that a win.

pwm2txlhopper · Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:14 pm

georgiabill wrote:
In the short term any growth from MHT may come from frieght business. With BOS growing I can see PVD and MHT splitting the air cargo capacity. Especially should Prime operate from MHT.

I'm willing to bet any additional freight service, aside from the likes of Fedex and UPS, would be more attracted to nearby PSM, at Pease International Tradeport. (formerly Pease AFB) It's a huge facility with an 11,500 ft runway, an enormous underutilized ramp and warehouses, and ripe for airfreight. Low user fees. Little commercial traffic, with two or three Allegiant flights per day, and probably closer to BOS than MHT? They've been promoting it for air freight for years. In fact, these days, I think PSM is handling more miltary contract airfreight and troop movements than BGR? Atlas 747's, Antonovs and others are here on an almost regular basis. UPS has used the facility during Christmas rush in years past.

Revelation · Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:19 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

Good analogy.

The problem is that most people value both cheaper flights and more choices more than they value a local option.

And I doubt MHT can do anything to buck that trend, regardless of how much or how little they pay the airport executives.

LotsaRunway · Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:53 pm

I'll jump in as well. I'm not particularly wed to any one airport, but I do like to see the regional airports throughout Northeast and New England do well. I probably follow PVD, MHT and PWM the closest, especially since WN first came into the region and stimulated the market. Having a true LCC at PVD and MHT when BOS didn't really drove some things I don't expect to see replicated under the current structure, but the cut-backs and redistribution/market driving has been a bit extreme at PVD and MHT. Major factors now include the emergence of B6 and other LCCs at BOS, the airline mergers, and the completion of the Big Dig. In 2017, PVD showed that it could rebound by strategically preparing and marketing itself. In 2017, MHT showed that it could sit back and wait for gifts to be bestowed upon it. Management is being very penny-wise and waiting for better days to just happen.

In general, I expect PVD to have good solid domestic and international connectivity at fares slightly higher than found at BOS. MHT should have similar fares to PVD and about 2/3rds the seat capacity as PVD. PWM should have slightly higher fares than PVD and MHT and about 2/3rds the seat capacity of MHT. BTV should probably have 1/2 to 2/3s the seat capacity of PWM. And BDL, while technically a smaller MSA than PVD, doesn't have the same leakage factor to BOS that MHT and PVD suffer, so it should have similar fares as PVD and 20 to 30% more seat capacity. This is all my math and not some published information.

Right now, BOS is eating everybody's lunch in the region. They have good fares and good service. I have family in Burlington that have driven to BOS 4 times in the past 9 months for travel. MassPort has planned and played their cards very well. But BOS is getting closer to again being a victim of it's success with full terminals and full parking lots. It's a great problem to have financially, but for the traveler, everybody starts to suffer a little bit more. Think extra time searching for parking. Paying more once you find it. Waiting in longer lines more crowded terminals. Airplanes stuck in line or a holding patterns.
Airplanes waiting for gates, etc. At some point, people will start looking for nearby alternatives. PVD seems to be turning that corner, but notice what has happened. Most of it is new ULCC and not legacy or WN expansion (the backbone of PVD). That said, PVD did get mainline upgrades to DTW, some new CR7 flights in AA to ORD and a pair of new WN flights to DCA. At the same time, MHT got pretty much nothing beyond an upgrade to CLT. Again, MHT sits and waits for good things to happen, and now they must be very optimistic because things are happening at PVD and PWM, and BTV, and BGR, and BDL. It must be time to crack open another beer and get ready for the party to start. PVD has planned, built, and marketed it's way into this growth. Yes, it was time, but they had to be there and be ready. MHT has no real FIS, just plans on a blueprint. They have long stated that Caribbean flight charters were a priority, but never built the tool to help those along. MHT is not in the same position for a strong rebound other than there is space available.

OK, I'm done with my diatribe.
My reasonable now list includes:
WN - FLL and DEN or LAS, keep the BWI flights better timed during slow season (the spring 2018 MHT-BWI schedule is horrible for the MHT business traveler)
AA - regular mainline on CLT RON, RJ upgrades to PHL away from the ERJs, A pair of AA CR7s to ORD
DL - regular mainline on 1 or 2 of the 3 DTWs and a second frequency to ATL (E175/CR9)
B6 - If WN doesn't do FLL, they leave the door wide open for B6, and if B6 comes to MHT, they will also bring MCO
UA - some sign of commitment to the market. Who wants a poorly timed single ERJ on a 900 mile flight to ORD? Who wants to fly on CRJs to ORD on even a good day? Who wants to fly to EWR when there is a significant probability that they will be cancelled or heavily delayed? My request for UA is simple. Provide a reliable product that people will actually want to use.

I also think FedEx, UPS and even Prime are realistically capable of expansion at MHT. Prime is only going to grow in the Boston area and freight at Logan is getting the squeeze. MHT has lots of space and good highway connectivity. They could grow at PVD, but MHT has the infrastructure already. Prime may need to be marketed and who knows if that is being done.

Wish list:
F9 - service to a few locations not done by the above. I don't think it would rival the service level at PVD in any way, but maybe some service to places that PVD is seeing success. An odd-ball flight to LAX would be interesting, but I'm not sure I would want to do it at their seat pitch.
WN - daily DEN and LAS, extra frequency to BWI and MCO
DL - solid business flyer schedule of 3 frequencies to ATL
B6 - JFK
UA - MHT and PVD service is so bad, I don't wish for more bad service. Just make UA an airline worth flying from MHT again.
Seasonal CUN flights from somebody

LotsaRunway · Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:58 pm

As a side note, I saw Brewer walking through the MHT terminal when I was there on business recently. I expected him to take toe opportunity to interact with people using the airport like Dillon always did. Instead, I couldn't catch up with him as he was bee-lining his way with his coffee from the Gate 15 Dunkin Donuts to the golden office elevator. I was hoping to ask him some questions. He must have been too busy for that nonsense.

pwm2txlhopper · Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:43 pm

LotsaRunway wrote:
I'll jump in as well. I'm noD. PWM should have slightly higher fares than PVD and MHT and about 2/3rds the seat capacity of MHT.

Right now, BOS is eating everybody's lunch in the region. They have good fares and good service. I have family in Burlington that have driven to BOS 4

I fly about six times a year on leisure. Primarily, South Florida and the Carribean, as well as to Southen California. Only once in recent years has MHT or BOS been cheaper on the same routes as PWM. Factoring in ground transport to those places, the price is definitely almost always higher. Doesn't matter if I fly B6 or Southwest, or the one of the legacy carriers. Usually the fares are the same. At least to cities B6 or Southwest fly to.

Last December, I flew LAX-PWM on Southwest for $260 RT. It was the same out of Boston, and $70 more out of MHT.

Flew PWM-MEM with DL for $300 RT at Thanksgiving. Use to be more like $500-700.

Just booked PWM-LAS on Spring break week for $172 one-way on the way to HNL . Was $150 out of BOS, and $180 out of MHT.

When I missed an Allegiant flight from PSM to FLL last winter, a last minute, same day ticket from PWM was the same price as at BOS. $200 more from MHT.

My last two international trips have even been the same price or cheaper than BOS. PWM-SJO, and PWM-TXL both on DL. Pre-2006, the international tickets would have been at least twice as high as BOS. Have never made an international connection out of MHT. Not sure what their fares would be for an connection to Europe?

PWM is only 1.5 hour drive from MHT and BOS. An hour from far Southern Maine. No doubt PWM is bleeding some of the leisure travelers who used MHT ten or 15 years ago. ( With BOS taking even more) That use to be the norm. Never meet anybody who goes to MHT anymore. They go to BOS, if not PWM.

airbazar · Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

Good analogy.

It's not a very good analogy at all. And if that was true how do you explain PVD's growth?
BOS is a much more expensive airport to operate to, or fly from in almost all aspects. So it makes no sense for MHT to be more expensive for either airlines or passengers.
Yes BOS does have lower fares and more choices, but it also has additional costs like parking and tolls, as well as more difficult to get to for a lot of people up here.
Parking in Boston is nearly 3x more than MHT while parking at Walmart is free

The reason why the local shops and small businesses can't compete with big corporations is because of a tax code and general business regulations written by big business and for big business,, which makes it very difficult for the little guys to compete. That is not the case with MHT vs. PVD or BOS.
In regards to the solar panels taking up parking space, that's not something MHT is worried these days. I've never seen the garage anywhere near full. In fact, the few times I've used it I was able to park right on the same level as the bridge. So if that top floor is consistently empty they may as well make some money from the solar panels.
As for new routes, WN please bring back DEN

Revelation · Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:55 pm

airbazar wrote:
Revelation wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

Good analogy.

It's not a very good analogy at all. And if that was true how do you explain PVD's growth?

I explain it by saying PVD's percent growth for a year might look impressive but in the great scheme of things PVD is also a local shop, not a Walmart.

pwm2txlhopper · Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:07 pm

airbazar wrote:
Revelation wrote:
RL757PVD wrote:
Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

Good analogy.

Parking in Boston is nearly 3x more than MHT

Park for free at PSM, take the bus or Uber to BOS or MHT if you're coming from the Seacoast New Hampshire or Southern Maine catchment areas.

RL757PVD · Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:09 pm

airbazar wrote:
It's not a very good analogy at all. And if that was true how do you explain PVD's growth?

I love how your view of RI/PVD is that it's on par with that of a 3rd world country

PVD has a significantly more robust local market, 4 Fortune 500 companies (including #7 on the list, CVS) compared to zero in NH and not too shabby considering Mass has 13.

But that analogy absolutely holds true for PVD, just on a different scale since its a larger market... if everyone in the PVD market stayed local for west coast flying, there is more than enough demand for a flight to LAX ...if Hasbro (looking to build a new downtown providence campus) buys Mattel (located next to LAX) as proposed, this could be a real possibility for 2018/2019 though....

chrisnh · Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:19 pm

I will say that last week flying through MHT that the folks there have really added splashes of color and a New England landscape motif throughout. Very appealing. Also, the glaring white backdrops behind the unused counters have given way to colorful designs and signage. So kudos to them for that.

In the end, one of the curiosities is this: aside from MHT fanboys like us (a label I've mostly shaken off), no one else in a position to effect change is similarly disappointed by this. Yes, 5-10 years ago once MHT and the others all started to slide (2005 was the MHT high-water mark), you could make a plausible argument along the lines of, "Well, this is happening at every small airport." And that usually kept the hounds (state & local officials, and the media) at bay.

But NOW, with the fortunes at PWM and PVD skyrocketing, that line of reasoning doesn't hold water any more. But City and State officials and the media don't seem to either understand what's at play or curiously they may not care. This is the paradox for me: Everyone crows about how an airport is an 'engine for regional growth' on one hand, and then when the airport death-spirals no one seems to care.

On a related financial note, I'd be curious to see what the MHT municipal bonds are rated at. Clearly they are paying back these bonds with much less cash flow than they expected to have when they were issued.

iyerhari · Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:26 pm

I think we are digressing from the topic here. It is unwise to compare the economics and scale of operations between Logan vs. MHT or PVD. To see statistics here:
Logan
Total pax in 2016 (it is going to improve in 2017 again): 36.2 million
Total parking spots at Logan (excluding employee parking): 18,415 - Logan is currently working on getting approvals for some 7K more spots but you can figure the pace of this project - Terminal B on a Monday am gets filled by 5:30 am EDT most times. Central parking gets filled by 8:00 am unless one is really lucky!

PVD
Total pax in 2016: 5.5 M
Total parking spots: 8327

MHT
Total pax in 2016: 2M (approx.)
Total parking spots: I could not find the number but I am sure the number suffices the pax served

I know of several of my near family friends who live in Nashua and Salem and they prefer Logan when they have to travel to India as you have multitudes of ride options available to take you vs. taking a US inbound connection. Business passengers in my firm where there travel almost every week prefer Logan simply because if there is a connection miss it is a virtual day wash.

All in all Logan also benefited from airline consolidation, superb Boston economy which is growing at great speeds and Massport who has been an excellent airport operator. Now, how can you beat all these combinations?

Comparisons to PVD vs. MHT is getting obvious especially since PVD has been landing new carriers - mostly DY, F9, G4 and J1 - sorry if I missed out anything here) vs. MHT which has not got anything. I believe their renaissance has been similar to PIT after they lost US and for a longtime, PIT was an empty airport. Not comparing PIT vs. PVD here, but I believe the airport management at PVD must have been aggressive to court low cost carriers knowing well that the core business traffic is still going to be at Logan. I would certainly wish PVD and hopefully MHT the best of luck as Logan has absolutely no space to accommodate new carriers.

RL757PVD · Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:18 am

To put it in the simplest of terms.... during the recession and mergers, capacity was cut from the bottom up and is being restored from the top down.

Notice a year before PVD's boom, BDL had B6 growth, UA added DEN, AA added and more importantly sustained LAX, EI NK and J1 came in, then 1-2 years later it was PVD's turn.

On an individual local market basis, PWM could be considered larger than MHT which could be why they are seeing some growth. Give it 1-2 years and I think you'll start to see some traction.

BMan1000 · Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:01 am

After a few years of holding out hope, I've pretty much accepted MHT will never be like it once was. BOS is pretty much on par with MHT as fares go, if not cheaper, and there are a plethora of options all over the world out of BOS. Between 2007 and 2016 I flew to NH every summer to visit family, and it has become more of a hassle to find reasonable flights to MHT. Southwest is rarely the cheapest option for me from the west coast. Usually it is United or AA, and even then connections are either really tight or very long because of lack of flights. It's a real shame because the terminal is very nice, and convenient to get to.
As for 2018, B6 to JFK is my dream flight for MHT, but we all know that'll probably never happen.... For realistic flights, I could see either NK or F9 finally biting the bullet and offering a flight or two to Florida (either MCO or FLL), Southwest will consider DEN again, and maybe a legacy carrier will add a flight or 2 to a hub or UA will try IAD again (it's really embarrassing MHT doesn't have UA to IAD). But I don't see much growth anytime soon unless there is an unexpected boom in corporate travel in NH, MHT finally gets management willing to make moves to make airlines want to serve MHT, or the BOS bubble finally bursts and airlines start raising fares due to lack of room to grow. But until any of those happen, I'm guessing MHT will remain the same little airport it is. It's such a lovely little airport, and people in NH do want to fly out of it, but for one reason or another, airlines seem to be passing over it. Here's to another year of hope for MHT :twocents:

LotsaRunway · Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:52 pm

pwm2txlhopper wrote:
LotsaRunway wrote:
I'll jump in as well. I'm noD. PWM should have slightly higher fares than PVD and MHT and about 2/3rds the seat capacity of MHT.

Right now, BOS is eating everybody's lunch in the region. They have good fares and good service. I have family in Burlington that have driven to BOS 4

I fly about six times a year on leisure. Primarily, South Florida and the Carribean, as well as to Southen California. Only once in recent years has MHT or BOS been cheaper on the same routes as PWM. Factoring in ground transport to those places, the price is definitely almost always higher. Doesn't matter if I fly B6 or Southwest, or the one of the legacy carriers. Usually the fares are the same. At least to cities B6 or Southwest fly to.

Last December, I flew LAX-PWM on Southwest for $260 RT. It was the same out of Boston, and $70 more out of MHT.

Flew PWM-MEM with DL for $300 RT at Thanksgiving. Use to be more like $500-700.

Just booked PWM-LAS on Spring break week for $172 one-way on the way to HNL . Was $150 out of BOS, and $180 out of MHT.

When I missed an Allegiant flight from PSM to FLL last winter, a last minute, same day ticket from PWM was the same price as at BOS. $200 more from MHT.

My last two international trips have even been the same price or cheaper than BOS. PWM-SJO, and PWM-TXL both on DL. Pre-2006, the international tickets would have been at least twice as high as BOS. Have never made an international connection out of MHT. Not sure what their fares would be for an connection to Europe?

PWM is only 1.5 hour drive from MHT and BOS. An hour from far Southern Maine. No doubt PWM is bleeding some of the leisure travelers who used MHT ten or 15 years ago. ( With BOS taking even more) That use to be the norm. Never meet anybody who goes to MHT anymore. They go to BOS, if not PWM.

I don't disagree with anything you have posted. In fact, PWM is doing great and a big part of it is that it has both WN and B6 in a balance of legacy carriers. There is actual competition there holding fares down and people are flying PWM as a result. I really don't see PWM and MHT in competition with each other. For a while, MHT drew some folks in Maine that rightfully should have flown from PWM, but that has swung back. I doubt there is much real leakage from MHT to PWM and instead the leakage is most likely all going towards BOS. Seeing the successes at WPM and PVD only highlights the lack of success at MHT.

RL757PVD wrote:
To put it in the simplest of terms.... during the recession and mergers, capacity was cut from the bottom up and is being restored from the top down.

Notice a year before PVD's boom, BDL had B6 growth, UA added DEN, AA added and more importantly sustained LAX, EI NK and J1 came in, then 1-2 years later it was PVD's turn.

On an individual local market basis, PWM could be considered larger than MHT which could be why they are seeing some growth. Give it 1-2 years and I think you'll start to see some traction.

I think you put too much emphasis in MSA population as if they are isolated markets. When multiple MSAs are adjacent or within a short drive of each other, other market forces drive people's travel decisions.
For example, Nashua is nearly as large as Manchester, but despite being only 10 miles away and is far closer to Manchester than Boston, but yet it's part of the Boston MSA instead of Manchester's. The population closer to MHT (and further than BOS) is quite a bit larger than PWM's. PWM is far enough away that it doesn't suffer the same amount of leakage and the airport has maintained a solid balance of competition.

BMan1000 wrote:
After a few years of holding out hope, I've pretty much accepted MHT will never be like it once was. BOS is pretty much on par with MHT as fares go, if not cheaper, and there are a plethora of options all over the world out of BOS. Between 2007 and 2016 I flew to NH every summer to visit family, and it has become more of a hassle to find reasonable flights to MHT. Southwest is rarely the cheapest option for me from the west coast. Usually it is United or AA, and even then connections are either really tight or very long because of lack of flights. It's a real shame because the terminal is very nice, and convenient to get to.
As for 2018, B6 to JFK is my dream flight for MHT, but we all know that'll probably never happen.... For realistic flights, I could see either NK or F9 finally biting the bullet and offering a flight or two to Florida (either MCO or FLL), Southwest will consider DEN again, and maybe a legacy carrier will add a flight or 2 to a hub or UA will try IAD again (it's really embarrassing MHT doesn't have UA to IAD). But I don't see much growth anytime soon unless there is an unexpected boom in corporate travel in NH, MHT finally gets management willing to make moves to make airlines want to serve MHT, or the BOS bubble finally bursts and airlines start raising fares due to lack of room to grow. But until any of those happen, I'm guessing MHT will remain the same little airport it is. It's such a lovely little airport, and people in NH do want to fly out of it, but for one reason or another, airlines seem to be passing over it. Here's to another year of hope for MHT

I don't agree that B6 will never come to MHT. I believe it's more a question of when they come. As long as they draw so much leakage from MHT to BOS to fly them, they aren't in a hurry. If MHT had a market jolt enabling more passengers to stay with MHT, I think you would see B6 airplanes in MHT pretty quickly. F9 could do that. Maybe NK. B6 could do that on their own if they start getting limited at BOS.

georgiabill · Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:20 pm

I think MHT is important to the growth of NH's economy. NH may not be home to a fortune 500 company,but has seen a growth in jobs. The millyard in Manchester has several hi tech startups and Bio medical research. I think the need for an airport will grow in the coming years. I think the state government should take over operations of MHT as the city is clearly unable to manage it properly. Their failure to remove the existing management shows their incompetence.
There is room for cargo expansion at MHT. Land to build a facility for Prime Air. Should rail transport return to NH a station is proposed for MHT(albeit bus transfers between terminal and station) MHT has room for additional parking, including lots presently not used.
They already have plans for international gates and preliminary work on it was done years ago. Due to declining passenger numbers management saw fit to spend money on junkets rather than building the facility to handle international passengers. Or spend the money to promote MHT and their flight options. PVD is spending money promoting not only Norwegian International flights but F9 and G4's services from PVD.
If anything new was to be added for MHT for summer 2018,new carrier,new routes restoring former services would have to be announce relatively soon. Hoping for DEN and AA to ORD would be great for MHT and perhaps a starting point to attract additional service.

33lspotter · Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:52 pm

On the one hand, I am surprised that B6 has not come into MHT. Then again, I don't see a huge draw.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:
MHT is about the same sized city as PWM, 75 miles east. LCC's arriving at PWM didn't kill MHT, but when it become the same price or less to fly from PWM, many traveler's in the greater Portland area and Southern Maine abandoned making to trek to MHT and BOS. I haven't used either in ten years.

Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006.

To be fair, and I say this as a Maine native, Manchester is around 50% larger than Portland. That said, I do agree that B6 and WN arriving at PWM made driving to MHT much less lucrative than it was 10-20 years ago.

LotsaRunway wrote:
I don't disagree with anything you have posted. In fact, PWM is doing great and a big part of it is that it has both WN and B6 in a balance of legacy carriers. There is actual competition there holding fares down and people are flying PWM as a result. I really don't see PWM and MHT in competition with each other. For a while, MHT drew some folks in Maine that rightfully should have flown from PWM, but that has swung back.

Fully agree. When PWM had no LCCs the fares were exorbitant, but with WN and B6 they are much more reasonable. No real incentive for most in Southern Maine to drive to MHT anymore, or at least not like it used to be.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:
In fact, these days, I think PSM is handling more miltary contract airfreight and troop movements than BGR? Atlas 747's, Antonovs and others are here on an almost regular basis. UPS has used the facility during Christmas rush in years past.

Certainly seems true, although BGR has seen some interesting DL heavies doing military charters coming from HHN in recent weeks. BGR still also sees more general aviation TATL movements than PSM, but PSM does have 5Y coming with the 763 pretty often.

uconn99 · Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:27 pm

iyerhari wrote:
I think we are digressing from the topic here. It is unwise to compare the economics and scale of operations between Logan vs. MHT or PVD. To see statistics here:
Logan
Total pax in 2016 (it is going to improve in 2017 again): 36.2 million
Total parking spots at Logan (excluding employee parking): 18,415 - Logan is currently working on getting approvals for some 7K more spots but you can figure the pace of this project - Terminal B on a Monday am gets filled by 5:30 am EDT most times. Central parking gets filled by 8:00 am unless one is really lucky!

PVD
Total pax in 2016: 5.5 M
Total parking spots: 8327

MHT
Total pax in 2016: 2M (approx.)
Total parking spots: I could not find the number but I am sure the number suffices the pax served

I know of several of my near family friends who live in Nashua and Salem and they prefer Logan when they have to travel to India as you have multitudes of ride options available to take you vs. taking a US inbound connection. Business passengers in my firm where there travel almost every week prefer Logan simply because if there is a connection miss it is a virtual day wash.

All in all Logan also benefited from airline consolidation, superb Boston economy which is growing at great speeds and Massport who has been an excellent airport operator. Now, how can you beat all these combinations?

Comparisons to PVD vs. MHT is getting obvious especially since PVD has been landing new carriers - mostly DY, F9, G4 and J1 - sorry if I missed out anything here) vs. MHT which has not got anything. I believe their renaissance has been similar to PIT after they lost US and for a longtime, PIT was an empty airport. Not comparing PIT vs. PVD here, but I believe the airport management at PVD must have been aggressive to court low cost carriers knowing well that the core business traffic is still going to be at Logan. I would certainly wish PVD and hopefully MHT the best of luck as Logan has absolutely no space to accommodate new carriers.

Your pax numbers for PVD are way off. In 2016 PVD had 3.653 million passengers and January-October 2017 is at 3.217 million passengers.

jfklganyc · Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:45 am

Thread title suggestion: Unless we are fully prepared to start using international codes on this site (which most people on here wont understand) can we stick to IATA codes?

MHT is sufficient.

No offense to the OP... It is the second thread today.

Unless we are prepared to start using TJSJ instead of SJU and EGLL instead of LHR, let’s stick to IATA.

chrisnh · Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:51 am

Sort of worrisome to me, but last week I had a trip to New Orleans and I flew MHT-TPA on the southbound trip and then MDW-MHT on the return. Both flights were about 60% full.

iyerhari · Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:16 am

uconn99 wrote:
iyerhari wrote:
I think we are digressing from the topic here. It is unwise to compare the economics and scale of operations between Logan vs. MHT or PVD. To see statistics here:
Logan
Total pax in 2016 (it is going to improve in 2017 again): 36.2 million
Total parking spots at Logan (excluding employee parking): 18,415 - Logan is currently working on getting approvals for some 7K more spots but you can figure the pace of this project - Terminal B on a Monday am gets filled by 5:30 am EDT most times. Central parking gets filled by 8:00 am unless one is really lucky!

PVD
Total pax in 2016: 5.5 M
Total parking spots: 8327

MHT
Total pax in 2016: 2M (approx.)
Total parking spots: I could not find the number but I am sure the number suffices the pax served

I know of several of my near family friends who live in Nashua and Salem and they prefer Logan when they have to travel to India as you have multitudes of ride options available to take you vs. taking a US inbound connection. Business passengers in my firm where there travel almost every week prefer Logan simply because if there is a connection miss it is a virtual day wash.

All in all Logan also benefited from airline consolidation, superb Boston economy which is growing at great speeds and Massport who has been an excellent airport operator. Now, how can you beat all these combinations?

Comparisons to PVD vs. MHT is getting obvious especially since PVD has been landing new carriers - mostly DY, F9, G4 and J1 - sorry if I missed out anything here) vs. MHT which has not got anything. I believe their renaissance has been similar to PIT after they lost US and for a longtime, PIT was an empty airport. Not comparing PIT vs. PVD here, but I believe the airport management at PVD must have been aggressive to court low cost carriers knowing well that the core business traffic is still going to be at Logan. I would certainly wish PVD and hopefully MHT the best of luck as Logan has absolutely no space to accommodate new carriers.

Your pax numbers for PVD are way off. In 2016 PVD had 3.653 million passengers and January-October 2017 is at 3.217 million passengers.

My apologies. I updated this while in flight and saw the wrong number. Sorry - will be careful next time.

georgiabill · Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:30 pm

I believe it is time for MHT to spend some money and promote the airport and it's flights. Management should be more pro active than reactive in their business decisions.
MHT could be an excellent airport north of Boston to relieve growth strains BOS as would PVD from the south of BOS. Both MHT and PVD have the infrastructure and space to grow.

I wish everyone a very happy holiday season for you and your families. May 2018 be a happy and prosperous year for you all!

slcdeltarumd11 · Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:41 am

I would like to see frontier airlines start MHT and BTV. I think there are opportunities at the less then daily level that could work for each.

Other then frontier I can't see any new airlines starting MHT, and the legacies are happy with purely hub flying.

jplatts · Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:44 pm

Even though Southwest has never served DAL nonstop from MHT, MHT did back Wright Amendment repeal efforts. In addition, there are on average only 31 passengers a day who travel between DAL and MHT in Q2 2017 according to the DOT Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report, Southwest also has nonstop service to DAL from BOS, and there is significantly greater demand to BOS from both DFW and DAL than there is to MHT. The demand isn't there for DAL-MHT nonstop service, despite MHT being behind Wright Amendment repeal efforts.

LotsaRunway · Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:37 pm

jplatts wrote:
Even though Southwest has never served DAL nonstop from MHT, MHT did back Wright Amendment repeal efforts. In addition, there are on average only 31 passengers a day who travel between DAL and MHT in Q2 2017 according to the DOT Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report, Southwest also has nonstop service to DAL from BOS, and there is significantly greater demand to BOS from both DFW and DAL than there is to MHT. The demand isn't there for DAL-MHT nonstop service, despite MHT being behind Wright Amendment repeal efforts.

I would agree that DAL is not on the short list at this time. In 2004, it probably was, if only that darn Wright Amendment was repealed.

In my opinion, AA doing MHT-ORD should be on MHT's immediate pursue list. UA is now doing a lone mid-day 50-seat CRJ on the route just 6 days a week. PVD's UA service to ORD is also a joke, but the two AA CR7s have really helped the market. AA seems to be peppering the region with ORD additions, so MHT is an obvious hole and a curious omission.

FLL is another market that is viable right now. I think WN has themselves in a positions where their smallest jet has grown too large for markets like this. Something in the 100-120 seat range would work well. WN and B6 also have connecting possibilities that are untapped.

rbavfan · Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:41 pm

pwm2txlhopper wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
The excuse that the market isn’t there is easily dispatched thanks to my log of a dozen UA 757 flights I took between MHT and ORD which were all full or nearly so.
.

I use to fly on full DL 757's from PWM to BOS. I also remember being on full UA 727s going PWM-MHT-ORD. And full flights on other mainline aircraft on routes no longer served from PWM. No year round service on mainline UA here for 17 years, now.

Times change. Just because the flights from past years were full, doesn't mean the airlines made money of the flight.

MHT is about the same sized city as PWM, 75 miles east. LCC's arriving at PWM didn't kill MHT, but when it become the same price or less to fly from PWM, many traveler's in the greater Portland area and Southern Maine abandoned making to trek to MHT and BOS. I haven't used either in ten years.

Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006.

You realize you destroyed your argument by saying:
"Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006."

rbavfan · Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:07 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
Runway28L wrote:

Glad most of my PHL/DCA-MHT trips were on the 170/175. Nowadays like many others, I just fly to BOS on JetBlue (who doesn't fly to MHT) and drive up since it's less expensive.

This is why MHT has limited service.

Driving to/from a larger airport for cheaper flights is like shopping at Walmart and wonder why the local shops on main street are all closing.

For MHT 2018 I would hope for:
2nd ATL summer seasonal
Sustained CLT mainline
Larger RJs to EWR

If they can pull off 2/3 of that list while keeping the rest, id call that a win.

Really like shopping at Walmart. I don't call $28 to $254 each way Walmart pricing.
Note: No First class from MHT, but from BOS first class was only $207 at this flight time.
MHT-ORD: 3:45pm: $88 BE, $113 E, $415 E Flexible
BOS-MHT: 2:55pm: $60 BE, $77 E, $161 E Flexible
-$28 Difference Economy (Basic)
-$36 difference Economy (standard)
-$254 difference Economy (Flexible)

rbavfan · Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:12 pm

rbavfan wrote:
pwm2txlhopper wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
The excuse that the market isn’t there is easily dispatched thanks to my log of a dozen UA 757 flights I took between MHT and ORD which were all full or nearly so.
.

I use to fly on full DL 757's from PWM to BOS. I also remember being on full UA 727s going PWM-MHT-ORD. And full flights on other mainline aircraft on routes no longer served from PWM. No year round service on mainline UA here for 17 years, now.

Times change. Just because the flights from past years were full, doesn't mean the airlines made money of the flight.

MHT is about the same sized city as PWM, 75 miles east. LCC's arriving at PWM didn't kill MHT, but when it become the same price or less to fly from PWM, many traveler's in the greater Portland area and Southern Maine abandoned making to trek to MHT and BOS. I haven't used either in ten years.

Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006.

You realize you destroyed your argument by saying:
"Don't have the time to look for the stats, but PWM passenger numbers have gone up something like 500,000+ passenger per year since 2006." How can list that with no real numbers!

lat41 · Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:39 pm

United Airlines in MHT and down in PVD is a whole story in itself, these days. The schedule changes around, up and down, sometimes connects well at hubs, sometimes not. They are late and cancel often especially when there is a couple claps of thunder or a few flakes of snow around. Such a vast selection of connecting flights at EWR for example, W/B, into the Carribean, South America and a great list of TATL cities but I wouldn't trust the outbound flight to hitch up with them! This phenomenon has made UA rather an afterthought, I'm afraid.

Avi8r747 · Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:09 am

Not only have I grown up at MHT, But I have worked many jobs at the airport. I have family who were front lines with a legacy, as well as family who also worked in that same Legacy's corporate office as a route analyst. So I have seen some pretty air tight numbers in regards to passenger traffic at MHT. And since price matching is a market survival necessity, I'm sure the other airlines had similar figures with SWA being the exception.

With that said, you can wish all you want, and blame whom ever you wish, MHT crumbled as a result of not having its own economy to sustain the growth and capacity. MHT died when SWA started operating out of BOS.

In SWA original strategy of operating at lesser used airports outside of big cities and away from major airports is how MHT even began to see the growth it had in the early 2000's. I believe 2006 was the single busiest year for MHT, and hasn't come anywhere close to even seeing half that traffic. It was at this same time that multiple factors had come to play resulting in the growth. Some legacy airlines had closed mainline stations in norther New England, SWA in MHT and not BOS, along with less service to northern New England made MHT what it was for a short while. Since fairs and schedule were better priced and timed, BOS actually saw a loss great enough to force MHT to change its name from the Manchester Airport, to the current Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.

SWA ran MHT. It used to be a great market for US Airways, but SWA took a large share of their traffic. United stopped 757 service to ORD because they were no cost effective, not with all the traffic now served to MDW. Every airline operating out of MHT used to have mainline service to all their key cities.

But with SWA opening Boston, mergers reshuffling routes and hubs, and no local economy, MHT tanked to the regional market it is today. You can blame management all you want, but they can only do so much when the airlines look at the numbers they have and see where their passengers are traveling to, and what loads and yields are. Those managers did not choose to stop MHT-IAD, that was United. They did not make United stop flying 757's to ORD, that was a result of competition to MDW. United tried bringing TED to MHT, and still couldn't make money. And since United management at MHT actually reported to BOS, there was no way BOS was going to lose its revenue to help MHT. The same goes for everyone else.

I worked at MHT in the busy days. It was great. But we all knew it was only going to be short lived. Thats why there are no more talks of building the international wing, no more talks of west coast ops, the second garage was scrapped, the second terminal is no longer needed, and why charters never utilized MHT. The Boston economy is thriving, and its growing and competing aggressively, as such the airport is seeing more traffic, the airlines are making more revenue, and the prices are more competitive, with service to second hand markets, while MHT was only ever served to feed hubs.

If Manchester and the region were to begin to compete for industry, MHT will rebound. Eventually it will get there, but unless mayors and governors alike start bringing big industry and corporations to NH, there is nothing to support MHT, and no airline is going to fulfill a wish list just because.

LotsaRunway · Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:52 pm

Avi8r747 wrote:
Not only have I grown up at MHT, But I have worked many jobs at the airport. I have family who were front lines with a legacy, as well as family who also worked in that same Legacy's corporate office as a route analyst. So I have seen some pretty air tight numbers in regards to passenger traffic at MHT.

Awesome! But it sounds like your information may be getting out of date if your family connections are no longer working for that legacy airline. A lot has changed with the mergers, price of oil, and LCC entry into Boston.

Avi8r747 wrote:
With that said, you can wish all you want, and blame whom ever you wish, MHT crumbled as a result of not having its own economy to sustain the growth and capacity. MHT died when SWA started operating out of BOS.

It is well agreed that MHT (and PVD) benefited by a bubble when WN entered at the same time the Big Dig made it harder to get to Logan. That bubble popped when the Big Dig was completed, the price of oil jumped, and B6 started growing like a weed at Logan. Gasoline was poured on the fire when WN added Logan to the map.

Avi8r747 wrote:
It was at this same time that multiple factors had come to play resulting in the growth. Some legacy airlines had closed mainline stations in norther New England, SWA in MHT and not BOS, along with less service to northern New England made MHT what it was for a short while.

The day that UA pulled down 3 mainline frequencies between MHT and ORD and replaced them with 2 CR7s, UA sent a message that they were essentially giving up at MHT, long time local UA FF's were cast aside and WN benefited. The same thing happened at PVD, but it was done more slowly and in a more subtle way. One could argue if this was a good or bad decision for UA, but it's pretty easy to argue that it's bad for MHT and PVD.

Avi8r747 wrote:
Since fairs and schedule were better priced and timed, BOS actually saw a loss great enough to force MHT to change its name from the Manchester Airport, to the current Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.

I don't think fares and frequencies at BOS were the reason for the name change. I think they were trying to get inbound flyers to think of MHT as being an option when flying to the Boston area. I personally think it was a dumb decision and that it only suggested to local flyers that Boston was an alternative to MHT.

Avi8r747 wrote:
But with SWA opening Boston, mergers reshuffling routes and hubs, and no local economy, MHT tanked to the regional market it is today. You can blame management all you want, but they can only do so much when the airlines look at the numbers they have and see where their passengers are traveling to, and what loads and yields are. Those managers did not choose to stop MHT-IAD, that was United. They did not make United stop flying 757's to ORD, that was a result of competition to MDW. United tried bringing TED to MHT, and still couldn't make money.

I would add to this that the price of oil was a huge factor here. Routes that could be flown profitably with low oil prices couldn't be sustained. UA was flying to Chicago against WN which was sitting on a ton of fuel hedges. 757's and TED could not win against that, but throwing CRJs against WN is like throwing in the towel early when those hedges were eventually going to be used up. Those fuel hedges allowed WN to build up a large domination at MHT since the legacies needed to drop to RJs to survive high oil prices.

Avi8r747 wrote:
And since United management at MHT actually reported to BOS, there was no way BOS was going to lose its revenue to help MHT. The same goes for everyone else.

I never knew this, but I don't think any airline would want a smaller station to erode their larger stations. Ideally they want complimentary service that allows them to keep maximum flyers of optimal yield.

Avi8r747 wrote:
I worked at MHT in the busy days. It was great. But we all knew it was only going to be short lived. Thats why there are no more talks of building the international wing, no more talks of west coast ops, the second garage was scrapped, the second terminal is no longer needed, and why charters never utilized MHT. The Boston economy is thriving, and its growing and competing aggressively, as such the airport is seeing more traffic, the airlines are making more revenue, and the prices are more competitive, with service to second hand markets, while MHT was only ever served to feed hubs.

Nobody wants the good ole days to end, but looking back at things, most are explainable. I also don't think anybody is now arguing that MHT should have a great point to point network. Most posts were focused on rounding out hub connectivity as well as realistic Florida O&D routes.

Avi8r747 wrote:
If Manchester and the region were to begin to compete for industry, MHT will rebound. Eventually it will get there, but unless mayors and governors alike start bringing big industry and corporations to NH, there is nothing to support MHT, and no airline is going to fulfill a wish list just because.

This is awfully pessimistic. The NH economy is rebounding just fine and MHT is defying national trends by not growing, so more is at play. How much airport managers are to blame is debatable, but not having them visibly trying doesn't help at all. I see the MHT problem differently than NH not growing large businesses. I see it as they are hemorrhaging in the leakage to Logan department. MHT needs enough reliable and affordable connectivity to major hubs to keep them in the game as an option so that travelers don't just always default to travelling Logan. Logan is setting records and part of that is their success at pulling leakage from NH. IMO, a viable strategy for MHT is to stabilize leakage by filling hub connectivity weaknesses and key point to point market. PVD has successfully done this and I do believe this success can be replicated on a smaller scale at MHT.

Avi8r747 · Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:05 am

While I agree with a lot fo what you're saying, I just don't believe MHT management has what it really needs to sell MHT as an alternative. While southern NH is exploding with growth, a lot of these people are norther Mass / Boston commuters, or work for companies based out of these areas. Its a hard sell to the airlines that MHT is a better choice, when their numbers say other wise.

I don't really think its fair comparing MHT to PVD anymore, as both markets have changed so much, that the comparisons just are not logistical arguments. PVD is a larger city, with a larger metro area, and has some a lot of government corporations located close by. Its proximity to norther long island has a factor to it. Even HFD and BDL are not fair comparisons, as Hartford is also larger, but serves Connecticut as well as south western Massachusetts, which just just so happens to be a short drive to Springfield. All those airports have larger demographic to sustain growth.

I think the best comparison would be with Portland. Its roughy the same size, with the same demographic, and same business infrastructure. Its great for what it is, but for an airline to grow a city, the city needs to create the demand.

Please, I not trying to sound harsh or arrogant, as I loved seeing MHT thriving! I would love to see it get back to that point, and I'm sure it will, but not for quite a while. The airlines just didn't have enough yields with too much competition to sustain everyone. And while I agree that an RJ is not alternative to a 737.

My main point was simply that if the demand and profits were there, so would the flights. the economy is Boston over the last decade has sky rocketed. Perhaps the Big Dig plays a larger role in this. But its a strong business center, with ties expanding across the globe, and in return is attracting a lot of new customers. Until BOS runs out of real estate to handle the increase in traffic, I just don't see how MHT can become competitive again.

georgiabill · Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:48 am

WMUR'S 11:00PM nightly news reported that Manchester's Airport Director is retiring on 02/28/2018 after 43 years in various airport management positions and 10 years as Manchester's director. A search will be launched for a new director. Hopefully the new director will be a little more proactive in attempting to secure new services.

tomaheath · Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:41 am

I was just reading about this. Will be interesting to see if anything will change.

georgiabill · Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:40 pm

I am hoping the new director will have the drive to try to shake up the status quo. There are under used gates and invest to turn 1 into a FIS facility. No I do not expect scheduled international services initially,but I could see seasonal charters to Mexico or Caribbean. Increase in advertising would help. Working with state to see a rail stop included in any rail service plan for NH.
For routes I would like to see AA flying 2x daily with E-175's MHT-ORD, upgrade to atleast 1 mainline MHT-PHL daily and wishful thinking AA E-175 MHT-MIA timed for Caribbean, Central and South American connections. DL flying atleast 2x MHT-ATL daily, 1 DL MHT-DTW mainline flight daily, seasonal MHT-MSP CRJ-7 or ERJ-175. WN restoring MHT-DEN and MHT-FLL daily service and a seasonal MHT-RSW flight.

Your thoughts

chrisnh · Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:46 pm

In my own opinion only, rail is talked about when there are federal dollars for ‘studies.’ That’s all that ever happens; federal dollars for rail studies become available and everyone hyperventilates. It’s like Groundhog Day.

The Airport Director was probably shown the door while allowing his exit to be called a ‘retirement.’ But his ten-year tenure at MHT was the worst ten years ever for the airport, as he consistently oversaw YoY declines.

tomaheath · Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:11 pm

For whats it’s worth the governor is finally supporting passenger rail service.

tomaheath · Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:10 pm

I often see Capeair doing “touch and goes” here at Manchester. Would there be any demand for them to serve Manchester? Makes me curious why they choose here for there training.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net