VS4ever wrote:

I am going to ask this here, as it happened on my flight From BOS this morning but does anyone else agree that Gogo internet on DL sucks. Cause mine sure did.

Yes, very much. And it’s a common topic of discussion on FlyerTalk as well in the DL forum.

hynithuchi wrote:

If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

Neither Boston as a hub nor Boston as a market and city are in the same league as New York dba Newark, DC or Montreal.

VS4ever wrote:

I am going to ask this here, as it happened on my flight From BOS this morning but does anyone else agree that Gogo internet on DL sucks. Cause mine sure did.

Normally pretty bad, although some of their planes that were recently refreshed have better speeds. So far my best experience speed wise is on B6.

pitbosflyer wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

I am going to ask this here, as it happened on my flight From BOS this morning but does anyone else agree that Gogo internet on DL sucks. Cause mine sure did.

Normally pretty bad, although some of their planes that were recently refreshed have better speeds. So far my best experience speed wise is on B6.

Yeah rarely had issues on B6. This was on a 752 to MSP, it was awful. I will not be paying for it on leg 2 to AUS, that’s for damn sure.

hynithuchi wrote:

airbazar wrote:

hynithuchi wrote:

With the new A321LR, can anyone see a direct flight BOS-GVA become a reality ? Rangewise it would be no problem and the capacity well adapted to a limited market like GVA. It's obvious that a BOS-GVA service will never be started by a Swiss or other European carrier as they are protecting their flights out of their hubs ( ZRH/FRA/LHR/CDG etc ),

I doubt that any U.S. carrier will. DL doesn't even operate JFK-GVA. LX operates a good amount of flights from GVA including GVA-JFK with an A333. They have not yet decided if they want the A321neo. If LX doesn't do it I doubt a U.S. carrier would. Why would said carrier start BOS-GVA instead of BOS-ZRH?

I immagine there could be a demand for 4-5 weekly flights GVA-BOS that would be profitable, saving passengers transiting through other major hubs. At the same time, if onward connections were available out of BOS, I'm sure it would work. As I said before, LX of course has no interest as they want to protect their ZRH-BOS flight, so an initiative would have to come from the US side. If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

You're saying this like it's a fact. It's not, it's your opinion. In my opinion LX not operating GVA-BOS has nothing to do with protecting the ZRH hub. There is no market, that's why they don't fly it. They fly to lots of destinations from GVA already but TATL is tricky.
AC and UA can make it work because of the A++ joint venture between UA, AC, and LH including LX.
In addition, Geneva being french speaking has the connection to Montreal. Notice how AC doesn't fly YYZ-GVA even though YYZ is a much larger city and airport.
There is no A++ airline based in BOS. If there was a market for BOS-GVA, LX would fly it. I don't see anyone other than LX flying this route any time soon.

B752OS wrote:

https://www.massport.com/capitalprogramsattachments/L1429-C2/L1429-C2%20CM-Supplemental%20Final.pdf

Massport has released information on the C to B connector. Looks great and will only make the experience of Terminal C better.

Looks like a real solid plan, both in some gate reorientations and use of space. It'll be possible to walk all the way from the far side of Term B all the way to E without reclearing security, and no more rinky-dink checkpoint with no precheck for the AS gates.

Curious about the numbering strategy. Looks like C42 will become B42, and B38 (after its reorientation) will become B43. Typos (should be C42/43?) or to keep the converging gate numbers from confusing people?

airbazar wrote:

hynithuchi wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I doubt that any U.S. carrier will. DL doesn't even operate JFK-GVA. LX operates a good amount of flights from GVA including GVA-JFK with an A333. They have not yet decided if they want the A321neo. If LX doesn't do it I doubt a U.S. carrier would. Why would said carrier start BOS-GVA instead of BOS-ZRH?

I immagine there could be a demand for 4-5 weekly flights GVA-BOS that would be profitable, saving passengers transiting through other major hubs. At the same time, if onward connections were available out of BOS, I'm sure it would work. As I said before, LX of course has no interest as they want to protect their ZRH-BOS flight, so an initiative would have to come from the US side. If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

You're saying this like it's a fact. It's not, it's your opinion. In my opinion LX not operating GVA-BOS has nothing to do with protecting the ZRH hub. There is no market, that's why they don't fly it. They fly to lots of destinations from GVA already but TATL is tricky.
AC and UA can make it work because of the A++ joint venture between UA, AC, and LH including LX.
In addition, Geneva being french speaking has the connection to Montreal. Notice how AC doesn't fly YYZ-GVA even though YYZ is a much larger city and airport.
There is no A++ airline based in BOS. If there was a market for BOS-GVA, LX would fly it. I don't see anyone other than LX flying this route any time soon.

Fine, as you say, I have my opinion on why there is no service and you have yours. Obviously, there is no interest from the American side either, so that settles my query.

hynithuchi wrote:

airbazar wrote:

You're saying this like it's a fact. It's not, it's your opinion. In my opinion LX not operating GVA-BOS has nothing to do with protecting the ZRH hub. There is no market, that's why they don't fly it. They fly to lots of destinations from GVA already but TATL is tricky.
AC and UA can make it work because of the A++ joint venture between UA, AC, and LH including LX.
In addition, Geneva being french speaking has the connection to Montreal. Notice how AC doesn't fly YYZ-GVA even though YYZ is a much larger city and airport.
There is no A++ airline based in BOS. If there was a market for BOS-GVA, LX would fly it. I don't see anyone other than LX flying this route any time soon.

Fine, as you say, I have my opinion on why there is no service and you have yours. Obviously, there is no interest from the American side either, so that settles my query.

Let me expand even more as why there won't be a BOS-GVA flight. Geneva is a low cost market. There's a reason why EasyJet is the largest airline at GVA by a long shot. All of these characteristics that I've highlighted amount to a thin, medium-haul, low cost, TATL market. I'm not sure that is something any major network carrier would be interested. BOS can't even support a MXP route and that is a significantly larger market.

airbazar wrote:

BOS can't even support a MXP route and that is a significantly larger market.

Although I certainly agree that BOS-GVA is not a potentially profitable route (few GVA TATLs are imo), I just don't know about MXP. Italy's such a strange market, not least due to the insanity of AZ. BOS has had both MXP and FCO service, but I think the changes in Italy service had more to do with where AZ was hubbing. Do we know that FCO is a better market from BOS, or do we only know that the BOS routing changed to there because AZ moved its hub back there?

bagoldex wrote:

hynithuchi wrote:

If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

Neither Boston as a hub nor Boston as a market and city are in the same league as New York dba Newark, DC or Montreal.

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international airlines that fly there/serve it?

*In 2017 YUL served 18 million passengers. That same year BOS served more than double that with 38.4 million passengers

*In 2017 YUL served 3.7 million international passengers. That same year BOS served just shy of 5 million international passenger (4.97 million to be exact)

*BOS has 35 international airlines that operate there. YUL has 26.

*BOS combined statistical area has 8.1 million people. YUL has 4.1 million

Aside from the fact that perhaps YUL and GVA are Francophone cities, I don't see what would make BOS such an "out of YUL's league" city.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international destinations served?

They're both French-speaking cities. YUL has a lot of connections to the francophone world.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

bagoldex wrote:

hynithuchi wrote:

If UA can operate profitably to EWR and IAD, AC to YUL, I think there should be a case for a GVA-BOS flight.

Neither Boston as a hub nor Boston as a market and city are in the same league as New York dba Newark, DC or Montreal.

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international airlines that fly there/serve it?

It's simply about Montreal's connection to French speaking Europe. Boston's can't compare. Montreal maintains a level of service to French speaking Europe (and Africa) that is in many ways even stronger than NYC.

GVA's largest unserved trans-Atlantic markets are MIA, SFO, LAX, CHI and YTO. I don't see Boston landing service anytime soon.

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

bagoldex wrote:

Neither Boston as a hub nor Boston as a market and city are in the same league as New York dba Newark, DC or Montreal.

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international airlines that fly there/serve it?

It's simply about Montreal's connection to French speaking Europe. Boston's can't compare. Montreal maintains a level of service to French speaking Europe (and Africa) that is in many ways even stronger than NYC.

GVA's largest unserved trans-Atlantic markets are MIA, SFO, LAX, CHI and YTO. I don't see Boston landing service anytime soon.

That I can understand. It just wasn't clear to me that's what bagoldex was referring to. So not really understanding the DC link then unless they have some big French speaking population I wasn't aware of.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international airlines that fly there/serve it?

It's simply about Montreal's connection to French speaking Europe. Boston's can't compare. Montreal maintains a level of service to French speaking Europe (and Africa) that is in many ways even stronger than NYC.

GVA's largest unserved trans-Atlantic markets are MIA, SFO, LAX, CHI and YTO. I don't see Boston landing service anytime soon.

That I can understand. It just wasn't clear to me that's what bagoldex was referring to. So not really understanding the DC link then unless they have some big French speaking population I wasn't aware of.

Geneva has significant business ties with Washington due to it's position as a global hub for international organizations, like the International Air Transport Association, the Red Cross and the World Health Organization, as well as having the second largest United Nations office after New York City.

airbazar wrote:

Let me expand even more as why there won't be a BOS-GVA flight. Geneva is a low cost market. There's a reason why EasyJet is the largest airline at GVA by a long shot. All of these characteristics that I've highlighted amount to a thin, medium-haul, low cost, TATL market. I'm not sure that is something any major network carrier would be interested. BOS can't even support a MXP route and that is a significantly larger market.

Ouch, I suggest that you do some research about Geneva market. It's far from being a low cost market only. Actually, it's one of the few markets that has some F seats demand in Europe outside PAR, LON, FRA. UA is profitable in GVA because of the yield, not the volume. EasyJet is strong in GVA simply because it arrived at the right time in the late 90s when Swissair decided to focus on ZRH. I am quite sure that average yields are higher in GVA than BOS.

With regards to a direct flight between BOS and GVA, I also think probability is low unless B6 tries - their A321 LR will be very much adapted for this market - or a MEB3 extends their GVA flights. But as said above, their are larger markets to be developed from GVA first.

https://www.gva.ch/en/Portaldata/1/Reso ... roport.pdf

BOS is a top target for GVA, 34.000 PAX O&D, at par with SFO. And 30% high yield. By the way, some comments make little sense: GVA is not a low cost market, it is in fact one of the highest yielding market in Europe. EZY dominates because Swiss scaled down, this is similar to Milan with Alitalia, Hamburg / Dussseldorf with LH. Legacy have given up point to point outside their main hubs. Does not mean that those markets are not attractive in terms of yield.

The only limitation for BOS is that it is not a hub, and neither is GVA. B6, if and when they decide, would be the perfect match. Until then, it will probably not happen.

The reason why I was talking about BOS was precisely because B6 will be getting the A321 LR and I can only see that airline doing it. It is obvious that the big players would not want to use some of their larger aircraft on such a niche route. There seems to be some misconception of the GVA market on the American side but I hope that B6 and not only forum participants do their market research. Having said this, looks like further posts ( if any ) should be continued on the Swiss Aviation thread as there doesn't seem too much US interest in a GVA service .

xorrygva wrote:

Ouch, I suggest that you do some research about Geneva market. It's far from being a low cost market only. Actually, it's one of the few markets that has some F seats demand in Europe outside PAR, LON, FRA. UA is profitable in GVA because of the yield, not the volume. EasyJet is strong in GVA simply because it arrived at the right time in the late 90s when Swissair decided to focus on ZRH. I am quite sure that average yields are higher in GVA than BOS.

I am European and educated in Europe. I know Geneva well enough. My sister went to [a fancy private] school nearby. To North America IT IS NOT a premium market hence why you have very few routes. Within Europe it is primarily a leisure market due to its proximity to all the ski resorts. A rich leisure market but a leisure market nonetheless.
It is however a favored destination of the very rich but those folks don't typically fly commercial. Wealthy middle eastern businessmen love Geneva but to N.America it is a low cost market.
The A321LR will have a problem because the primary draw for GVA is ski traffic. I'm not sure how well the A321LR would fare, flying westbound TATL in the Winter loaded with ski equipment. It's probably a no-go.

pmartin wrote:

BOS is a top target for GVA, 34.000 PAX O&D, at par with SFO. And 30% high yield. By the way, some comments make little sense: GVA is not a low cost market, it is in fact one of the highest yielding market in Europe. EZY

It's high yielding because it's dominated by very short routes due to it's central location in Europe. Low Cost does not mean Low Yield. High Yields don't necessarily mean high profits. Yield is very skewed by flight length in favor of short segments.

airbazar wrote:

I am European and educated in Europe. I know Geneva well enough. My sister went to [a fancy private] school nearby. To North America IT IS NOT a premium market hence why you have very few routes. Within Europe it is primarily a leisure market due to its proximity to all the ski resorts. A rich leisure market but a leisure market nonetheless.
It is however a favored destination of the very rich but those folks don't typically fly commercial. Wealthy middle eastern businessmen love Geneva but to N.America it is a low cost market.
The A321LR will have a problem because the primary draw for GVA is ski traffic. I'm not sure how well the A321LR would fare, flying westbound TATL in the Winter loaded with ski equipment. It's probably a no-go.
It's high yielding because it's dominated by very short routes due to it's central location in Europe. Low Cost does not mean Low Yield. High Yields don't necessarily mean high profits. Yield is very skewed by flight length in favor of short segments.

You are actually not correct. In the long-haul segment, GVA is one of the few European airports that completely fills its F and C classes. More than 20% of travellers fly C-class or higher. Survey by Airplus shows that more than 50% of GVA long-haul travellers. To equate GVA airport yield to ski travel (~1.2 m travellers p.a. out of 17m) is not accurate given the economic wealth of the region: finance, trading & shipping (Cargill, Dreyfus, Mercuria, Trafigura, Vitol, etc.), luxury goods (Rolex, Richemont), multi global HQs (Nestle, etc.), EMEA HQ including many from the US like P&G, Du Pont, HP, Medtronic, etc., international organisations (UN, WTO, CERN, WHO, IOC, etc.).

FYI in July UA flights (EWR + IAD) were ~85% full, with similar loads across C, premium economy, and Y. In March, not a peak holiday month, ~90% in C, ~80% in premium economy and ~65% in Y (total ~75%). It is the same picture for LX. The problem for GVA is not filling the F / Y, because it is a premium market. It is filling the back of the plane, because it is a medium sized city (Geneva -Lausanne Area ~1.6m people across France and Switzerland) and lacks connection (not a hub).

MAH4546 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

bagoldex wrote:

Neither Boston as a hub nor Boston as a market and city are in the same league as New York dba Newark, DC or Montreal.

While I agree with you about New York/Newark, what are you basing Montreal on that you claim it's in a different league than BOS? Population? Number of international airlines that fly there/serve it?

It's simply about Montreal's connection to French speaking Europe. Boston's can't compare. Montreal maintains a level of service to French speaking Europe (and Africa) that is in many ways even stronger than NYC.

GVA's largest unserved trans-Atlantic markets are MIA, SFO, LAX, CHI and YTO. I don't see Boston landing service anytime soon.

Another poster just posted this link direct from GVA airport. Looks like BOS is actually a larger market than CHI - https://www.gva.ch/en/Portaldata/1/Reso ... roport.pdf

pmartin wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I am European and educated in Europe. I know Geneva well enough. My sister went to [a fancy private] school nearby. To North America IT IS NOT a premium market hence why you have very few routes. Within Europe it is primarily a leisure market due to its proximity to all the ski resorts. A rich leisure market but a leisure market nonetheless.
It is however a favored destination of the very rich but those folks don't typically fly commercial. Wealthy middle eastern businessmen love Geneva but to N.America it is a low cost market.
The A321LR will have a problem because the primary draw for GVA is ski traffic. I'm not sure how well the A321LR would fare, flying westbound TATL in the Winter loaded with ski equipment. It's probably a no-go.
It's high yielding because it's dominated by very short routes due to it's central location in Europe. Low Cost does not mean Low Yield. High Yields don't necessarily mean high profits. Yield is very skewed by flight length in favor of short segments.

You are actually not correct. In the long-haul segment, GVA is one of the few European airports that completely fills its F and C classes. More than 20% of travellers fly C-class or higher. Survey by Airplus shows that more than 50% of GVA long-haul travellers. To equate GVA airport yield to ski travel (~1.2 m travellers p.a. out of 17m) is not accurate given the economic wealth of the region: finance, trading & shipping (Cargill, Dreyfus, Mercuria, Trafigura, Vitol, etc.), luxury goods (Rolex, Richemont), multi global HQs (Nestle, etc.), EMEA HQ including many from the US like P&G, Du Pont, HP, Medtronic, etc., international organisations (UN, WTO, CERN, WHO, IOC, etc.).

FYI in July UA flights (EWR + IAD) were ~85% full, with similar loads across C, premium economy, and Y. In March, not a peak holiday month, ~90% in C, ~80% in premium economy and ~65% in Y (total ~75%). It is the same picture for LX. The problem for GVA is not filling the F / Y, because it is a premium market. It is filling the back of the plane, because it is a medium sized city (Geneva -Lausanne Area ~1.6m people across France and Switzerland) and lacks connection (not a hub).

Right. Myself along with ALL the North American airlines that DON'T fly between NA and GVA are wrong and you are correct. We'll leave it at that.

On the premium market, you are wrong, yes. And the numbers speak, i.e. load factors in F/C/economy plus. On market volume, well, it is a limited market with no connections. And ZRH is not far away, competes as Swiss gateway for NA tourists, with many more connections. 4 flights to North America a day is not a bad outcome for GVA compared to airports of same size with no connecting opportunities, e.g. Hamburg, etc.. So to conclude, Boston, why not, but it is niche, so you are right, it may never happen. Does not mean that GVA is low yield in general, especially not for long hauls. It is more low volume.

Hey guys, click that link above. It says BOS specifically is 30% high yield, not all traffic.

airbazar wrote:

tjerome wrote:

tlecam wrote:

Intermingled in that article were Bastian's comments on the Boeing NMA, and how they need that plane as a replacement for the 757s and the 767s.

I wonder how a plane that size would fit into Terminal A gates. I'd guess that the wings will be longer than the 767.

I wonder if at some point, Delta will work with Massport to create a solution for transfers between A and E.

What should happen is the cargo facilities for DL/FDX.etc. gets leveled and an extension to terminal A is built, with CBP. [...] I don't see why DL and Massport aren't all over this. Win-win for everyone really.

Cargo is far too important and profitable for Massport. That's why. Those cargo facilities aren't going anywhere. If DL wants to expand intl they will have to do it out of the new terminal E in a few years. If you search up a few pages someone posted the cargo numbers. Cargo growth is absolutely thru the roof at BOS and the biggest obstacle is that cargo at BOS travels mainly on passenger planes. So take away the cargo facilities and we lose passenger flights.

I was saying that the cargo facilities would be re-located to where 14/32 currently sits.

airbazar wrote:

pmartin wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I am European and educated in Europe. I know Geneva well enough. My sister went to [a fancy private] school nearby. To North America IT IS NOT a premium market hence why you have very few routes. Within Europe it is primarily a leisure market due to its proximity to all the ski resorts. A rich leisure market but a leisure market nonetheless.
It is however a favored destination of the very rich but those folks don't typically fly commercial. Wealthy middle eastern businessmen love Geneva but to N.America it is a low cost market.
The A321LR will have a problem because the primary draw for GVA is ski traffic. I'm not sure how well the A321LR would fare, flying westbound TATL in the Winter loaded with ski equipment. It's probably a no-go.
It's high yielding because it's dominated by very short routes due to it's central location in Europe. Low Cost does not mean Low Yield. High Yields don't necessarily mean high profits. Yield is very skewed by flight length in favor of short segments.

You are actually not correct. In the long-haul segment, GVA is one of the few European airports that completely fills its F and C classes. More than 20% of travellers fly C-class or higher. Survey by Airplus shows that more than 50% of GVA long-haul travellers. To equate GVA airport yield to ski travel (~1.2 m travellers p.a. out of 17m) is not accurate given the economic wealth of the region: finance, trading & shipping (Cargill, Dreyfus, Mercuria, Trafigura, Vitol, etc.), luxury goods (Rolex, Richemont), multi global HQs (Nestle, etc.), EMEA HQ including many from the US like P&G, Du Pont, HP, Medtronic, etc., international organisations (UN, WTO, CERN, WHO, IOC, etc.).

FYI in July UA flights (EWR + IAD) were ~85% full, with similar loads across C, premium economy, and Y. In March, not a peak holiday month, ~90% in C, ~80% in premium economy and ~65% in Y (total ~75%). It is the same picture for LX. The problem for GVA is not filling the F / Y, because it is a premium market. It is filling the back of the plane, because it is a medium sized city (Geneva -Lausanne Area ~1.6m people across France and Switzerland) and lacks connection (not a hub).

Right. Myself along with ALL the North American airlines that DON'T fly between NA and GVA are wrong and you are correct. We'll leave it at that.

UA flies twice daily between GVA and NA and AC one daily (and less during the ski season btw). You'll be surprised by the revenue generated by DL from GVA even being offline. That only leaves AA (and you indeed).
Let's see what B6 decides in the end, I don't want to make this tread an exclusive GVA-BOS matter. But I still strongly believe that GVA-BOS would work very well for B6.

xorrygva wrote:

UA flies twice daily between GVA and NA and AC one daily (and less during the ski season btw). You'll be surprised by the revenue generated by DL from GVA even being offline. That only leaves AA (and you indeed).
Let's see what B6 decides in the end, I don't want to make this tread an exclusive GVA-BOS matter. But I still strongly believe that GVA-BOS would work very well for B6.

DL doesn't fly to GVA from the US. UA/LX/AC have a TATL joint venture. They are 1 airline for all intents and purposes. There's a reason why only 1 airline operates between GVA and ALL of North America. If more than 1 airline tried it no one would make a profit. Lack of competition keeps fares inflated but more competition would kill the routes. Do people really think that if GVA was so high profit that DL (or AA), would chose to put a plane on routes like LIS, VCE, NCE, etc instead of GVA? This idea just doesn't pass the smell test. Look at all the destinations in Europe with multiple carriers from N.A. then ask yourself why GVA is only served by one.

4 flights a day to NA, year round. That’s more than nice, Hamburg,Venice, Prague or budapest for that matter. It is more than Athens. I can’t see your point, nobody says that gva is the largest market. May be 4 dailies to NA is enough. But frankly your argument that gva is a rubbish market does not stick. And FYI direct flights cover just 50% of the O&D trafic. So in theory there is room. What actually happens in practice is not my competence, neither yours.

airbazar wrote:

xorrygva wrote:

UA flies twice daily between GVA and NA and AC one daily (and less during the ski season btw). You'll be surprised by the revenue generated by DL from GVA even being offline. That only leaves AA (and you indeed).
Let's see what B6 decides in the end, I don't want to make this tread an exclusive GVA-BOS matter. But I still strongly believe that GVA-BOS would work very well for B6.

DL doesn't fly to GVA from the US. UA/LX/AC have a TATL joint venture. They are 1 airline for all intents and purposes. There's a reason why only 1 airline operates between GVA and ALL of North America. If more than 1 airline tried it no one would make a profit. Lack of competition keeps fares inflated but more competition would kill the routes. Do people really think that if GVA was so high profit that DL (or AA), would chose to put a plane on routes like LIS, VCE, NCE, etc instead of GVA? This idea just doesn't pass the smell test. Look at all the destinations in Europe with multiple carriers from N.A. then ask yourself why GVA is only served by one.

Ok...not the latest stats but GVA was ranking first for yields between NYC and Europe in 2012 and only 7th after LON, PAR, FRA, AMS, ZRH and FCO for revenues. For MIA Europe, GVA was also first for yields and 10th for revenues. How can you tell me that GVA is a ski-focused market with low yield and at the same time claiming that you know the market.
Finally, I mentioned in my previous post that DL was offline from GVA. Despite this, DL generates more revenues from GVA than from online European destinations...There are limited insentives for DL to fly to GVA since they are making good money already, even without flying there.
GVA's main issue is the relatively low volume with limited feeding capabilties. That's a reason why many airlines have selected other markets instead. But few options with the right airline would work very well (e.g. AA from MIA or B6 from BOS).

xorrygva/pmartin - thanks for supporting me in suggesting a BOS service could be viable it can't be helped if some people have preconceived ideas. It is obvious that DL/AA will not serve GVA with a 300 seater while they already serve ZRH and have JV with their alliance partners from GVA ( not referring to BOS ). When I raised the subject, I had an airline outside the big alliances in mind as they would not be afraid of facing competition and with the appropriate aircraft: this could only be B6. I'm not sure what they are offering beyond BOS but I'm sure there must be onward connections which wouldn't limit traffic to the BOS Metropolitan area only. Admittedly, at the GVA side, onward connection possibilities would be inexistant. It definitely seems that some people underestimate to GVA market potential, but it is their right to be wrong
Sorry BOS fans for taking over your thread, as for myself I'm not encroaching on it anymore and will definitely use the Swiss Aviation thread in future.

So it appears the massport CEO has submitted a letter of resignation.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Ma ... 16731.html

How much do we think this will change the course of scheduled changes to Logan.

jworks158 wrote:

So it appears the massport CEO has submitted a letter of resignation.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Ma ... 16731.html

How much do we think this will change the course of scheduled changes to Logan.

Very little if anything I would imagine. All of the upgrades and expansions Massport is/has been working on are very reasonable and necessary for a growing airport.

xorrygva wrote:

Ok...not the latest stats but GVA was ranking first for yields between NYC and Europe in 2012 and only 7th after LON, PAR, FRA, AMS, ZRH and FCO for revenues. For MIA Europe, GVA was also first for yields and 10th for revenues. How can you tell me that GVA is a ski-focused market with low yield and at the same time claiming that you know the market.

I never once said it was a low yield destination. I did claim it to be small and low cost and it would not generate profits if any other TATL airline chose to start U.S.-GVA, and in particular BOS-GVA. And my reason for believing that is because it can only support 1 "airline". The high yields are artificial and a result of zero competition and a monopoly by the A++ alliance. Let me know when a non-A++ airline starts TATL service to GVA then i may change my opinion. As it stands I strongly believe that if any U.S. carrier were to start service to GVA the fares would collapse.

jworks158 wrote:

So it appears the massport CEO has submitted a letter of resignation.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Ma ... 16731.html

How much do we think this will change the course of scheduled changes to Logan.

Don't think it will change much at the airport itself. He's accomplished a lot for Boston Logan.

xorrygva wrote:

Ok...not the latest stats but GVA was ranking first for yields between NYC and Europe in 2012 and only 7th after LON, PAR, FRA, AMS, ZRH and FCO for revenues. For MIA Europe, GVA was also first for yields and 10th for revenues. How can you tell me that GVA is a ski-focused market with low yield and at the same time claiming that you know the market.

I never once said it was a low yield destination. I did claim it to be small and low cost and it would not generate profits if any other TATL airline chose to start U.S.-GVA, and in particular BOS-GVA. And my reason for believing that is because it can only support 1 "airline". The high yields are artificial and a result of zero competition and a monopoly by the A++ alliance. Let me know when a non-A++ airline starts TATL service to GVA then i may change my opinion. As it stands I strongly believe that if any U.S. carrier were to start service to GVA the fares would collapse.

pmartin wrote:

4 flights a day to NA, year round. That’s more than nice, Hamburg,Venice, Prague or budapest for that matter. It is more than Athens. I can’t see your point, nobody says that gva is the largest market. May be 4 dailies to NA is enough. But frankly your argument that gva is a rubbish market does not stick. And FYI direct flights cover just 50% of the O&D trafic. So in theory there is room. What actually happens in practice is not my competence, neither yours.

No one is claiming that Hamburg,Venice, Prague or Budapest are these incredibly high profit destinations. My point is if GVA is this money making machine that everyone claims to be, why don't we have competition from N.America? DL operates BOS-LHR at 60% LF. Surely if GVA is all that people claim to be they could make it work from JFK, no? Aren't market like GVA the reason for operating 752's on TATL routes?

I learned a ton about Geneva in this thread; it's one of the few places in Europe that I haven't made it to in my travels.

Another topic - I haven't been to the satellite in Terminal A in awhile (or I haven't paid attention) - after all the Friendly's closures, I was surprised to see one pop up at Terminal A. Also, I wish that there was a Starbucks (or some sort of decent non-Dunks, non-Lucky's coffee in the main terminal.)

hynithuchi wrote:

xorrygva/pmartin - thanks for supporting me in suggesting a BOS service could be viable it can't be helped if some people have preconceived ideas. It is obvious that DL/AA will not serve GVA with a 300 seater while they already serve ZRH and have JV with their alliance partners from GVA ( not referring to BOS ). When I raised the subject, I had an airline outside the big alliances in mind as they would not be afraid of facing competition and with the appropriate aircraft: this could only be B6. I'm not sure what they are offering beyond BOS but I'm sure there must be onward connections which wouldn't limit traffic to the BOS Metropolitan area only. Admittedly, at the GVA side, onward connection possibilities would be inexistant. It definitely seems that some people underestimate to GVA market potential, but it is their right to be wrong
Sorry BOS fans for taking over your thread, as for myself I'm not encroaching on it anymore and will definitely use the Swiss Aviation thread in future.

Personally I think Geneva and Boston make a classy city pairing, and would love the symbolism of them being connected by a flight. And I think it's possible to support a few flights a week without taking a loss. There's demand there that's not going to show up in the data- my father has gone to that side of Switzerland several times in recent years. He always flies in via France.

tlecam wrote:

I learned a ton about Geneva in this thread; it's one of the few places in Europe that I haven't made it to in my travels.

Another topic - I haven't been to the satellite in Terminal A in awhile (or I haven't paid attention) - after all the Friendly's closures, I was surprised to see one pop up at Terminal A. Also, I wish that there was a Starbucks (or some sort of decent non-Dunks, non-Lucky's coffee in the main terminal.)

My favorite restaurant at terminal A used to be Fudruckers but that closed so now there's really nothing decent anymore to grab a quick bite to eat.

tlecam wrote:

I learned a ton about Geneva in this thread; it's one of the few places in Europe that I haven't made it to in my travels.

Another topic - I haven't been to the satellite in Terminal A in awhile (or I haven't paid attention) - after all the Friendly's closures, I was surprised to see one pop up at Terminal A. Also, I wish that there was a Starbucks (or some sort of decent non-Dunks, non-Lucky's coffee in the main terminal.)

I had to buy milk for my kid who a year back when he was 2 years 2 months old and it was a long walk to take him to satellite side and then get him back to the main side. Satellite side does not have any restaurant I think but has a food court and Starbucks, Dunkin and some stores like Johnston and Murphy. The main side has the Legal sea foods kitchen and another sports bar type of places. You get the feeling how less of options we have at BOS at A and B. The newly remodeled B is supposed to get nice choices. C has much better options thanks to B6.

Sitting here at YVR I get the sense that, in some respects, BOS is a Mayberry kind of town. This city is booming with wealth and growth, and the mix of international service is impressive.

With EBACE almost always being in GVA I know plenty of colleagues who wouldn't mind a few more direct NA-GVA flights, at least in the Spring. Obviously, one week of the year isn't enough to justify service though. I've been to Geneva once, a beautiful city. We flew into CDG and then drove to GVA because it was a little cheaper and about the same time duration if we had connected to another flight (this was about 10 years ago, that has probably changed by now).

I honestly do not know much about the market but I've always seen ZRH as being primarily a business destination while GVA is maybe more fragmented between leisure and business. I would think an A321LR would be fairly easy to fill on BOS-GVA though. Perhaps not daily but, at least a few times a week. I agree with Jouhou too, BOS-GVA somehow seems like a proper route.

It is official PF has decide to go seasonal in BOS
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 000000taAi

iyerhari wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I learned a ton about Geneva in this thread; it's one of the few places in Europe that I haven't made it to in my travels.

Another topic - I haven't been to the satellite in Terminal A in awhile (or I haven't paid attention) - after all the Friendly's closures, I was surprised to see one pop up at Terminal A. Also, I wish that there was a Starbucks (or some sort of decent non-Dunks, non-Lucky's coffee in the main terminal.)

I had to buy milk for my kid who a year back when he was 2 years 2 months old and it was a long walk to take him to satellite side and then get him back to the main side. Satellite side does not have any restaurant I think but has a food court and Starbucks, Dunkin and some stores like Johnston and Murphy. The main side has the Legal sea foods kitchen and another sports bar type of places. You get the feeling how less of options we have at BOS at A and B. The newly remodeled B is supposed to get nice choices. C has much better options thanks to B6.

Are those two bars still there, at either end of the satellite arms? One was Game On and the other was a brewery - maybe Harpoon?

As I said, I haven't been out to the satellite in quite awhile - lots of BOS/NYC flights and also one out to the west coast which departed from the main terminal.

Lucky's is a good alternative to Legal's, but is not quick.

JetBlue and GVA IMO are like oil and water. Industries where Boston has an edge (pharma, tech, higher education...) and where JetBlue fits naturally are focused on German-speaking Switzerland (all the "Swissnex" stuff which has an office in Cambridge). Geneva is mostly "old finance"... the whole city and environment feels like stuck in 1980. I have a hard time making the connection between that environment with "cool" JetBlue flying a narrow-body TATL.

I could even see BOS-BSL on JetBlue a more natural fit than GVA. Basel has all the pharma industry (e.g. Novartis), it is more dynamic (part of German-speaking Switzerland) and has a catchment area that (in comparison with Zurich) reaches places like Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Karlsruhe) or Strasbourg easier. Also with BSL being a low-cost hub, they could make some partnership with easyJet or other carrier there.

tlecam wrote:

Lucky's is a good alternative to Legal's, but is not quick.

Having been a frequent visitor to the real Lucky's Lounge (my office used to be right around the corner), I wasn't impressed with Lucky's at terminal A I don't fly out of A often tho. I'm a UA FF and my go-to place at B is Stephanie's.

tlecam wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I learned a ton about Geneva in this thread; it's one of the few places in Europe that I haven't made it to in my travels.

Another topic - I haven't been to the satellite in Terminal A in awhile (or I haven't paid attention) - after all the Friendly's closures, I was surprised to see one pop up at Terminal A. Also, I wish that there was a Starbucks (or some sort of decent non-Dunks, non-Lucky's coffee in the main terminal.)

I had to buy milk for my kid who a year back when he was 2 years 2 months old and it was a long walk to take him to satellite side and then get him back to the main side. Satellite side does not have any restaurant I think but has a food court and Starbucks, Dunkin and some stores like Johnston and Murphy. The main side has the Legal sea foods kitchen and another sports bar type of places. You get the feeling how less of options we have at BOS at A and B. The newly remodeled B is supposed to get nice choices. C has much better options thanks to B6.

Are those two bars still there, at either end of the satellite arms? One was Game On and the other was a brewery - maybe Harpoon?

As I said, I haven't been out to the satellite in quite awhile - lots of BOS/NYC flights and also one out to the west coast which departed from the main terminal.

Lucky's is a good alternative to Legal's, but is not quick.

Harpoon and Game On are both still there. Agreed about the Starbucks, I find myself adding an extra half-hour to trek to the satellite for coffee when flying out of the main terminal. Some New England traditions have ensnared me - Dunkin is not one of them.

jworks158 wrote:

It is official PF has decide to go seasonal in BOS
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 000000taAi

Actually I had a fear they would abandon completely. So this is a pleasant surprise.

After seeing conversations in the PHL thread I just wanted to find out here. Are any of BOS-Asia flights payload restricted due to the runway length? Because I've seen full CX flights but I'm not sure if it results in cargo being restricted.

VS4ever wrote:

jworks158 wrote:

It is official PF has decide to go seasonal in BOS
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 000000taAi

Actually I had a fear they would abandon completely. So this is a pleasant surprise.

Same! I saw a PF ad on my Facebook feed today advertising Boston-London service, which made me wonder if they were renewing services. Surprised to see they're bringing back CDG also. Seasonal is probably a good plan for them.

People talk about another CBP facility in Terminal A perhaps and like to blame Massport or the airlines. Why dont people address the root problem here which makes it impossible, the US CBP. They can’t even staff Terminal E, what makes anyone think they can staff 2 clearance stations in BOS. The government is in no rush it seems to add agents country wide and airport authorities are already subsidizing overtime to an extent. CBP staffing is the issue.

Thomas Cook Airlines UK in summer 2019 season is suspending Manchester – Boston service, previously noted by the airline. Currently served on seasonal basis, the airline operates this route 3 times a week, with Airbus A330-200 aircraft in summer 2018 season, including flights operated by Air Tanker.

MT2862 MAN1300 – 1510BOS 332 135
MT2863 BOS1735 – 0455+1MAN 332 135