paysonmt77 wrote:

Looks like Sun Country going to announce MSP to PWM Tuesday. So with Jetblue seasonal, is the Jetport going to split the counter space with them? Next year JetBlue will only have 2 flights to jfk. .msp has always been a profitable route when northwest flew to msp. Lets see how this shakes up the jetport...

https://bangordailynews.com/2019/11/05/ ... in-cities/

It's official. PWM-MSP on Thursdays & Sundays beginning in mid June.

I'm surprised, never expected SY to be the next step for PWM, especially given their failure at PVD. I wonder if DL will respond with their own PWM-MSP.

I don't think they 'failed' at PVD. I saw it mentioned that they would return there.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

I don't think they 'failed' at PVD. I saw it mentioned that they would return there.

Sun Country is returning to PVD-MSP on 5/22. Looks like they dropped BNA.
https://twitter.com/tfgreenairport/stat ... 13121?s=19

PVD-MSP resumes 5/22 at 2x then operates X236 in June PWM will be twice weekly with flights on Thursdays and Sundays only

RL757PVD wrote:

PVD-MSP resumes 5/22 at 2x then operates X236 in June PWM will be twice weekly with flights on Thursdays and Sundays only

any idea on timing? i'd consider giving them a shot if a reasonable PVD-MSP-LAX/SFO/SAN and v/v itinerary was possible.

IIRC, the PVD-BNA flight wasn't timed for connections in BNA.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

PVD-MSP resumes 5/22 at 2x then operates X236 in June PWM will be twice weekly with flights on Thursdays and Sundays only

any idea on timing? i'd consider giving them a shot if a reasonable PVD-MSP-LAX/SFO/SAN and v/v itinerary was possible.

IIRC, the PVD-BNA flight wasn't timed for connections in BNA.

SEA SFO LAX LAS all have good connections (under 2 hrs both directions)... SAN has a good connection to SAN but a bad (overnight) on the way back.

RL757PVD wrote:

PVD-MSP resumes 5/22 at 2x then operates X236 in June PWM will be twice weekly with flights on Thursdays and Sundays only

So essentially the plane used to go to PVD will instead go to PWM on two days and gets a nap on Mondays.

LotsaRunway wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

PVD-MSP resumes 5/22 at 2x then operates X236 in June PWM will be twice weekly with flights on Thursdays and Sundays only

So essentially the plane used to go to PVD will instead go to PWM on two days and gets a nap on Mondays.

No because PVD is Monday Thursday Friday Sunday and PWM is Thursday/Sunday, so it probably naps on Tuesday and does something else (likely leisure) on Wednesday and Saturday

I'm a little surprised by Sun Country's entry into the Portland market, thought they might serve Manchester or possibly Bangor due to the availability of counter and gate space. Looks like Maine's draw as a tourist destination continues to flourish and PWM's 9 airlines and 22 non stop destinations (including seasonal options) is impressive for any small to mid size airport.

Portlander wrote:

I'm a little surprised by Sun Country's entry into the Portland market, thought they might serve Manchester or possibly Bangor due to the availability of counter and gate space. Looks like Maine's draw as a tourist destination continues to flourish and PWM's 9 airlines and 22 non stop destinations (including seasonal options) is impressive for any small to mid size airport.

Portland is a hot market. More visitors, more businesses, more growth in the tech sector, more people living in the metro area. It is amazing that an airport of ~2 million PAX per year has 9 airlines and over 20 nonstop destinations. On top of that, there's still plenty of room for PWM to capture Maine based travelers who would otherwise bus to Logan, and I think Jetport officials recognize that.

A seemingly small step, but tree on the approach to runway 20 at HVN has finally come down which should result in the 352 foot displaced threshold being rolled back and also should help in reducing weight restrictions on runway 2 takeoffs.

So what will that now give HVN for usable runway length for takeoffs in each direction?

Portlander wrote:

So what will that now give HVN for usable runway length for takeoffs in each direction?

5600 feet.

airlineworker wrote:

Portlander wrote:

So what will that now give HVN for usable runway length for takeoffs in each direction?

5600 feet.

In that case, is the paving of the safety areas really necessary to attract additional service? SNA is 5700' and obviously sees a wide array of commercial service; EYW is 5000' and while that presents challenges, carriers have found the right aircraft to make it work.

I've never been all that convinced that a longer runway would result in a plethora of additional commercial service. If the usable takeoff length really is up to 5600' now and there's no meaningful change in service I think it will be quite clear that runway isn't the issue airlines have with HVN.

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Portlander wrote:

So what will that now give HVN for usable runway length for takeoffs in each direction?

5600 feet.

In that case, is the paving of the safety areas really necessary to attract additional service? SNA is 5700' and obviously sees a wide array of commercial service; EYW is 5000' and while that presents challenges, carriers have found the right aircraft to make it work.

I've never been all that convinced that a longer runway would result in a plethora of additional commercial service. If the usable takeoff length really is up to 5600' now and there's no meaningful change in service I think it will be quite clear that runway isn't the issue airlines have with HVN.

While the runway lengths seem alike, SNA has flat approaches at both ends and being a west coast airport, flights east do not have to contend with headwinds. Tweed apart from CLT and ATL, flights west to ORD and DTW would be subject to prevailing headwinds. Both HHH and EYW experience weight restrictions, HHH to CLT offers 65 seats on most flights out on the 76 seat E-175. Temperature, wind speed and direction, flight stage length and wet runways all mean at times more runway will be needed to depart with full flights and to avoid diversions. AA is doing well with the E-175's and with the tree coming down that will result in both runways offering 5600 feet, something that has never happened since the runway back in the 60's added 900 feet to the 4700 foot runway. If AA is doing well, why would not also DL and UA do well. The current plan is to pave 400 feet to the north and 1000 feet to the south. When one looks at HVN on an area map, there is a ready made market for air travel with a larger population base that BDL has among the tobacco fields. In the past, NW and SW surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those plans. When Piedmont was dropping the Dash-8 for the ERJ-145, the 145 would not work at HVN, thus the CRJ-200 was the replacement for the Dash. I see UA coming in with CRJ-550 flights to ORD and DL with E-175 flights to DTW, hopefully next year. To say that Hartford has a robust market for air travel and New Haven does not is simply not true. Tweed still evokes memories of Dash-8's, B-1900's, Saab A-340's and Twin Otters, but passenger numbers are rising as word spreads that Tweed offers jet service. While 5600 feet can work under certain conditions, reliable service needs more runway to ensure completed flights under all conditions.

For followers of the unusual, B6 operated flight 34 from JFK to BTV today with their latest aircraft, A321neo N2016J. This is the 3rd Airbus sub on this flight in the past 9 days.

airlineworker wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

5600 feet.

In that case, is the paving of the safety areas really necessary to attract additional service? SNA is 5700' and obviously sees a wide array of commercial service; EYW is 5000' and while that presents challenges, carriers have found the right aircraft to make it work.

I've never been all that convinced that a longer runway would result in a plethora of additional commercial service. If the usable takeoff length really is up to 5600' now and there's no meaningful change in service I think it will be quite clear that runway isn't the issue airlines have with HVN.

While the runway lengths seem alike, SNA has flat approaches at both ends and being a west coast airport, flights east do not have to contend with headwinds. Tweed apart from CLT and ATL, flights west to ORD and DTW would be subject to prevailing headwinds. Both HHH and EYW experience weight restrictions, HHH to CLT offers 65 seats on most flights out on the 76 seat E-175. Temperature, wind speed and direction, flight stage length and wet runways all mean at times more runway will be needed to depart with full flights and to avoid diversions. AA is doing well with the E-175's and with the tree coming down that will result in both runways offering 5600 feet, something that has never happened since the runway back in the 60's added 900 feet to the 4700 foot runway. If AA is doing well, why would not also DL and UA do well. The current plan is to pave 400 feet to the north and 1000 feet to the south. When one looks at HVN on an area map, there is a ready made market for air travel with a larger population base that BDL has among the tobacco fields. In the past, NW and SW surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those plans. When Piedmont was dropping the Dash-8 for the ERJ-145, the 145 would not work at HVN, thus the CRJ-200 was the replacement for the Dash. I see UA coming in with CRJ-550 flights to ORD and DL with E-175 flights to DTW, hopefully next year. To say that Hartford has a robust market for air travel and New Haven does not is simply not true. Tweed still evokes memories of Dash-8's, B-1900's, Saab A-340's and Twin Otters, but passenger numbers are rising as word spreads that Tweed offers jet service. While 5600 feet can work under certain conditions, reliable service needs more runway to ensure completed flights under all conditions.

Is AA really doing well though? A Saturday only flight to CLT doesn't exactly indicate a top performing route. AA is using a plane that would otherwise be sitting on the ground in CLT, and (probably) spends the other six days of the week flying more profitable routes.

To me the CLT flight shows that airlines could serve other regional hubs (DTW, ORD, IAD, ATL, etc.) now if they wanted to; that is even more true with the obstruction removal and the longer usable runway length. But they're not doing it.

I don't think the market dynamics are really as much of a strength as you think. Yes, HVN is the middle of a densely populated area. But it is also sandwiched between two very well served markets, namely NYC and BDL. A lot of the population that HVN would want to draw from is in Fairfield County, which is very well served from a regional airport standpoint at HPN, and from LGA/JFK for longer range flights. All HVN would do for that market is duplicate options consumers already have at HPN. As you go further and further north of HVN, BDL becomes the preferred option. Yes, the area around HVN is densely populated, but with the Fairfield County and greater Hartford area markets spoken for, the only markets that would be significantly better served by HVN are the immediate New Haven area, and points east (and as you go east, the population density drops significantly). The market shrinks considerably once you take into account the segments of the population that are already pretty well served.

In that case, is the paving of the safety areas really necessary to attract additional service? SNA is 5700' and obviously sees a wide array of commercial service; EYW is 5000' and while that presents challenges, carriers have found the right aircraft to make it work.

I've never been all that convinced that a longer runway would result in a plethora of additional commercial service. If the usable takeoff length really is up to 5600' now and there's no meaningful change in service I think it will be quite clear that runway isn't the issue airlines have with HVN.

Remember that New Haven has Winter weather which results in contaminated runway conditions like sand slush and snow along with the strong and changeable wind conditions that come with them. SNA and EYW, whatever their limitations do not have to contend with that.

The 321 is likely more just an equip subs as they come on property as opposed to demand driven. Back in 1998 or so I flew on one of the very first 738s on CLE-PVD in place of a 735, it wasn’t based on loads but rather the new plane on property and getting it flying.

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

In that case, is the paving of the safety areas really necessary to attract additional service? SNA is 5700' and obviously sees a wide array of commercial service; EYW is 5000' and while that presents challenges, carriers have found the right aircraft to make it work.

I've never been all that convinced that a longer runway would result in a plethora of additional commercial service. If the usable takeoff length really is up to 5600' now and there's no meaningful change in service I think it will be quite clear that runway isn't the issue airlines have with HVN.

While the runway lengths seem alike, SNA has flat approaches at both ends and being a west coast airport, flights east do not have to contend with headwinds. Tweed apart from CLT and ATL, flights west to ORD and DTW would be subject to prevailing headwinds. Both HHH and EYW experience weight restrictions, HHH to CLT offers 65 seats on most flights out on the 76 seat E-175. Temperature, wind speed and direction, flight stage length and wet runways all mean at times more runway will be needed to depart with full flights and to avoid diversions. AA is doing well with the E-175's and with the tree coming down that will result in both runways offering 5600 feet, something that has never happened since the runway back in the 60's added 900 feet to the 4700 foot runway. If AA is doing well, why would not also DL and UA do well. The current plan is to pave 400 feet to the north and 1000 feet to the south. When one looks at HVN on an area map, there is a ready made market for air travel with a larger population base that BDL has among the tobacco fields. In the past, NW and SW surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those plans. When Piedmont was dropping the Dash-8 for the ERJ-145, the 145 would not work at HVN, thus the CRJ-200 was the replacement for the Dash. I see UA coming in with CRJ-550 flights to ORD and DL with E-175 flights to DTW, hopefully next year. To say that Hartford has a robust market for air travel and New Haven does not is simply not true. Tweed still evokes memories of Dash-8's, B-1900's, Saab A-340's and Twin Otters, but passenger numbers are rising as word spreads that Tweed offers jet service. While 5600 feet can work under certain conditions, reliable service needs more runway to ensure completed flights under all conditions.

Is AA really doing well though? A Saturday only flight to CLT doesn't exactly indicate a top performing route. AA is using a plane that would otherwise be sitting on the ground in CLT, and (probably) spends the other six days of the week flying more profitable routes.

To me the CLT flight shows that airlines could serve other regional hubs (DTW, ORD, IAD, ATL, etc.) now if they wanted to; that is even more true with the obstruction removal and the longer usable runway length. But they're not doing it.

I don't think the market dynamics are really as much of a strength as you think. Yes, HVN is the middle of a densely populated area. But it is also sandwiched between two very well served markets, namely NYC and BDL. A lot of the population that HVN would want to draw from is in Fairfield County, which is very well served from a regional airport standpoint at HPN, and from LGA/JFK for longer range flights. All HVN would do for that market is duplicate options consumers already have at HPN. As you go further and further north of HVN, BDL becomes the preferred option. Yes, the area around HVN is densely populated, but with the Fairfield County and greater Hartford area markets spoken for, the only markets that would be significantly better served by HVN are the immediate New Haven area, and points east (and as you go east, the population density drops significantly). The market shrinks considerably once you take into account the segments of the population that are already pretty well served.

AA had a Saturday only flight from AVL to DFW for quite some time before it went daily. Saturday is the slowest travel day of the week and yet loads continue to be good. The tree just came down and the displaced threshold has not been moved back, they are awaiting FAA approval. You don't think HVN could support 15-20 or so daily flights on 65-76 RJ's? Just think of the thousands who who drive up I-91 to BDL who would use Tweed and the driving distance from Bridgeport to HPN is 43 miles, whereas HVN is 21 miles, less than half the miles and also avoiding one of I-95 busiest sections. For years people have been used to driving to BDL due to HVN service being sporadic, UA, DL and the perception of HVN being a prop airport. Now AA is using E-175's with a first class section, something HVN has not seen since 1996. I see Tweed's market going from Old Saybrook to Middletown and to Bridgeport and the many small towns in between. That constitutes a large market that can support many more flights. I see a great market and all it takes is for someone to try HVN and they will be hooked, nearby, no hassles and minutes from I-95 and I-91. Years back WN surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those talks. Now with the advent of larger RJ's, Tweed can offer more service

airlineworker wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

While the runway lengths seem alike, SNA has flat approaches at both ends and being a west coast airport, flights east do not have to contend with headwinds. Tweed apart from CLT and ATL, flights west to ORD and DTW would be subject to prevailing headwinds. Both HHH and EYW experience weight restrictions, HHH to CLT offers 65 seats on most flights out on the 76 seat E-175. Temperature, wind speed and direction, flight stage length and wet runways all mean at times more runway will be needed to depart with full flights and to avoid diversions. AA is doing well with the E-175's and with the tree coming down that will result in both runways offering 5600 feet, something that has never happened since the runway back in the 60's added 900 feet to the 4700 foot runway. If AA is doing well, why would not also DL and UA do well. The current plan is to pave 400 feet to the north and 1000 feet to the south. When one looks at HVN on an area map, there is a ready made market for air travel with a larger population base that BDL has among the tobacco fields. In the past, NW and SW surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those plans. When Piedmont was dropping the Dash-8 for the ERJ-145, the 145 would not work at HVN, thus the CRJ-200 was the replacement for the Dash. I see UA coming in with CRJ-550 flights to ORD and DL with E-175 flights to DTW, hopefully next year. To say that Hartford has a robust market for air travel and New Haven does not is simply not true. Tweed still evokes memories of Dash-8's, B-1900's, Saab A-340's and Twin Otters, but passenger numbers are rising as word spreads that Tweed offers jet service. While 5600 feet can work under certain conditions, reliable service needs more runway to ensure completed flights under all conditions.

Is AA really doing well though? A Saturday only flight to CLT doesn't exactly indicate a top performing route. AA is using a plane that would otherwise be sitting on the ground in CLT, and (probably) spends the other six days of the week flying more profitable routes.

To me the CLT flight shows that airlines could serve other regional hubs (DTW, ORD, IAD, ATL, etc.) now if they wanted to; that is even more true with the obstruction removal and the longer usable runway length. But they're not doing it.

I don't think the market dynamics are really as much of a strength as you think. Yes, HVN is the middle of a densely populated area. But it is also sandwiched between two very well served markets, namely NYC and BDL. A lot of the population that HVN would want to draw from is in Fairfield County, which is very well served from a regional airport standpoint at HPN, and from LGA/JFK for longer range flights. All HVN would do for that market is duplicate options consumers already have at HPN. As you go further and further north of HVN, BDL becomes the preferred option. Yes, the area around HVN is densely populated, but with the Fairfield County and greater Hartford area markets spoken for, the only markets that would be significantly better served by HVN are the immediate New Haven area, and points east (and as you go east, the population density drops significantly). The market shrinks considerably once you take into account the segments of the population that are already pretty well served.

AA had a Saturday only flight from AVL to DFW for quite some time before it went daily. Saturday is the slowest travel day of the week and yet loads continue to be good. The tree just came down and the displaced threshold has not been moved back, they are awaiting FAA approval. You don't think HVN could support 15-20 or so daily flights on 65-76 RJ's? Just think of the thousands who who drive up I-91 to BDL who would use Tweed and the driving distance from Bridgeport to HPN is 43 miles, whereas HVN is 21 miles, less than half the miles and also avoiding one of I-95 busiest sections. For years people have been used to driving to BDL due to HVN service being sporadic, UA, DL and the perception of HVN being a prop airport. Now AA is using E-175's with a first class section, something HVN has not seen since 1996. I see Tweed's market going from Old Saybrook to Middletown and to Bridgeport and the many small towns in between. That constitutes a large market that can support many more flights. I see a great market and all it takes is for someone to try HVN and they will be hooked, nearby, no hassles and minutes from I-95 and I-91. Years back WN surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those talks. Now with the advent of larger RJ's, Tweed can offer more service

I could in theory see around 15 flights supported by the market; the question is whether carriers have an appetite to serve that market via HVN, and I think they have shown that they really do not. DL could start service to DTW on a CR7 or E75 tomorrow if they wanted to, and UA could do the same to IAD. But they haven't done that in the past and nothing indicates to me that they will be clamoring to do so in the near future. Yes, it would be nice for the communities close to HVN to be able to have a shorter drive to the airport, but to your point they are driving to BDL (or HPN, or LGA, etc.); the carriers are getting them as customers anyway without having to open up a new station at HVN (and incur the additional costs that doing so would entail).

Also, Bridgeport to HPN is 34 miles, per Google Maps, and Bridgeport is probably the extent of HVN's market reach to the west. From Fairfield down HPN becomes the more logical option. And I've tried HVN, and I was not "hooked" - 3 flights to PHL a day as your only commercial service is not going to be a viable option for a lot of travelers (myself included, especially when there are other options with far more service well within reach). And HVN's facilities makes HPN look...palatial (though if you only have 3 regional flights a day, they're appropriate).

I would love to see HVN grow and agree that there is a population around it that can be well served by increased service, but given the market dynamics and the facilities, I don't really see major growth any time in the near future.

B595 wrote:

RL757PVD wrote:

The 321 is likely more just an equip subs as they come on property as opposed to demand driven. Back in 1998 or so I flew on one of the very first 738s on CLE-PVD in place of a 735, it wasn’t based on loads but rather the new plane on property and getting it flying.

I understand that - mjg referred to it as a “sub” in his original post. But I didn’t expect to see it in BTV period, as a sub or anything else. The A320s are a rare sight in BTV these days, let alone the A321.

I know they will sub 321s for 320s because it has happened to me, so I'm sure they would also use the 321 for the 190 if that's what is available. And BTV is one of the shorter trips from JFK so they can get the plane back to its regular routes ASAP.

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

Is AA really doing well though? A Saturday only flight to CLT doesn't exactly indicate a top performing route. AA is using a plane that would otherwise be sitting on the ground in CLT, and (probably) spends the other six days of the week flying more profitable routes.

To me the CLT flight shows that airlines could serve other regional hubs (DTW, ORD, IAD, ATL, etc.) now if they wanted to; that is even more true with the obstruction removal and the longer usable runway length. But they're not doing it.

I don't think the market dynamics are really as much of a strength as you think. Yes, HVN is the middle of a densely populated area. But it is also sandwiched between two very well served markets, namely NYC and BDL. A lot of the population that HVN would want to draw from is in Fairfield County, which is very well served from a regional airport standpoint at HPN, and from LGA/JFK for longer range flights. All HVN would do for that market is duplicate options consumers already have at HPN. As you go further and further north of HVN, BDL becomes the preferred option. Yes, the area around HVN is densely populated, but with the Fairfield County and greater Hartford area markets spoken for, the only markets that would be significantly better served by HVN are the immediate New Haven area, and points east (and as you go east, the population density drops significantly). The market shrinks considerably once you take into account the segments of the population that are already pretty well served.

AA had a Saturday only flight from AVL to DFW for quite some time before it went daily. Saturday is the slowest travel day of the week and yet loads continue to be good. The tree just came down and the displaced threshold has not been moved back, they are awaiting FAA approval. You don't think HVN could support 15-20 or so daily flights on 65-76 RJ's? Just think of the thousands who who drive up I-91 to BDL who would use Tweed and the driving distance from Bridgeport to HPN is 43 miles, whereas HVN is 21 miles, less than half the miles and also avoiding one of I-95 busiest sections. For years people have been used to driving to BDL due to HVN service being sporadic, UA, DL and the perception of HVN being a prop airport. Now AA is using E-175's with a first class section, something HVN has not seen since 1996. I see Tweed's market going from Old Saybrook to Middletown and to Bridgeport and the many small towns in between. That constitutes a large market that can support many more flights. I see a great market and all it takes is for someone to try HVN and they will be hooked, nearby, no hassles and minutes from I-95 and I-91. Years back WN surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those talks. Now with the advent of larger RJ's, Tweed can offer more service

I could in theory see around 15 flights supported by the market; the question is whether carriers have an appetite to serve that market via HVN, and I think they have shown that they really do not. DL could start service to DTW on a CR7 or E75 tomorrow if they wanted to, and UA could do the same to IAD. But they haven't done that in the past and nothing indicates to me that they will be clamoring to do so in the near future. Yes, it would be nice for the communities close to HVN to be able to have a shorter drive to the airport, but to your point they are driving to BDL (or HPN, or LGA, etc.); the carriers are getting them as customers anyway without having to open up a new station at HVN (and incur the additional costs that doing so would entail).

Also, Bridgeport to HPN is 34 miles, per Google Maps, and Bridgeport is probably the extent of HVN's market reach to the west. From Fairfield down HPN becomes the more logical option. And I've tried HVN, and I was not "hooked" - 3 flights to PHL a day as your only commercial service is not going to be a viable option for a lot of travelers (myself included, especially when there are other options with far more service well within reach). And HVN's facilities makes HPN look...palatial (though if you only have 3 regional flights a day, they're appropriate).

I would love to see HVN grow and agree that there is a population around it that can be well served by increased service, but given the market dynamics and the facilities, I don't really see major growth any time in the near future.

Allegiant has already said they would commit to HVN when the runway is longer. I agree the facilities, the terminal will be a limiting factor but it surely can handle for than the current number of flights. As far as DL, years back NW proposed twice to offer HVN-DTW, first with a DC-9 and then a CRJ-200 but under certain weather conditions flights would be severely weight restricted and DL management is made up of some NW personnel It took several years for DL to commit to ORH. I still feel DL will commit and UA now with the CRJ-550, I also see them going with HVN-ORD flights, Filling 3-4 flights to ORD on 50 seaters would not be hard to do. Back in the 90's, UA had four HVN-ORD 737 flights daily. Apart from Allegiant, I don't see anymore LCC's coming to Tweed in the near future, but with the three majors and Allegiant, that would cover the majorities needs of the local population and having JFK for international flights, that would be a good combination. In a past survey, New Haven was listed as one of the most underserved cities. I feel 2020 will be a good year for HVN with regional jets.

I wish HVN well and agree that it is very underserved. Am surprise to learn that the airport used to have 737 service heading west on a 5600' runway during the winter months with a tree in the way. I guess the 737 requires less runway than other narrow body mainline aircraft and it must have been the 100 or 200 variant?

Fex180 wrote:

Portlander wrote:

I'm a little surprised by Sun Country's entry into the Portland market, thought they might serve Manchester or possibly Bangor due to the availability of counter and gate space. Looks like Maine's draw as a tourist destination continues to flourish and PWM's 9 airlines and 22 non stop destinations (including seasonal options) is impressive for any small to mid size airport.

Portland is a hot market. More visitors, more businesses, more growth in the tech sector, more people living in the metro area. It is amazing that an airport of ~2 million PAX per year has 9 airlines and over 20 nonstop destinations. On top of that, there's still plenty of room for PWM to capture Maine based travelers who would otherwise bus to Logan, and I think Jetport officials recognize that.

It's useful to put things into perspective. PWM didn't return to 2008 passenger numbers until 2016. There's a TON of seasonality, with Jan/Feb/Mar each less than half of the August peak of enplanements.

https://portlandjetport.org/airport-statistics

^ Agree, but during that 8 year period PWM's total passenger count never dipped lower than 95,000 from the 2008 peak which is acceptable during a down period for many airports across the country. December through April has always been a lean stretch for Maine in general and I don't see anything on the horizon that will change that dynamic. I surely wouldn't want to visit this area during those months and I'm not enthusiastic about living here during that period either! We'll take seasonality over unpopularity anytime.

The dip in pax numbers for the winter isn't that much more extreme than other airports, and PWM has had good luck keeping year-round mainline flights and winter seasonal routes south. I wouldn't be surprised if SY at least tries winter seasonal routes from PWM for winter 2020/22

Portlander wrote:

I wish HVN well and agree that it is very underserved. Am surprise to learn that the airport used to have 737 service heading west on a 5600' runway during the winter months with a tree in the way. I guess the 737 requires less runway than other narrow body mainline aircraft and it must have been the 100 or 200 variant?

UA started out with 737-300's and later went to 737-500's. The airport back then had to deal with many trees in the flight path of runway 20 which also affected takeoffs on runway 2 and weight restricted flights were very common, one flight had to deplane 40 passengers. During the summer it was worse due to high temps and heading westbound flights were met with prevailing headwinds. Since then many trees were cut and the last one just came down last week. Utility poles were repositioned and 1000 foot overruns added to both ends of the runway. NW in the past proposed HVN-DTW with DC-9's but at times takeoffs on runway 2 could only factor 4700 feet for the takeoff distance.

Thanks for the impressive historical background and it looks like HVN is poised for additional service which should eventually lead to an expanded terminal and infrastructure improvements. Baby steps!

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

Is AA really doing well though? A Saturday only flight to CLT doesn't exactly indicate a top performing route. AA is using a plane that would otherwise be sitting on the ground in CLT, and (probably) spends the other six days of the week flying more profitable routes.

To me the CLT flight shows that airlines could serve other regional hubs (DTW, ORD, IAD, ATL, etc.) now if they wanted to; that is even more true with the obstruction removal and the longer usable runway length. But they're not doing it.

I don't think the market dynamics are really as much of a strength as you think. Yes, HVN is the middle of a densely populated area. But it is also sandwiched between two very well served markets, namely NYC and BDL. A lot of the population that HVN would want to draw from is in Fairfield County, which is very well served from a regional airport standpoint at HPN, and from LGA/JFK for longer range flights. All HVN would do for that market is duplicate options consumers already have at HPN. As you go further and further north of HVN, BDL becomes the preferred option. Yes, the area around HVN is densely populated, but with the Fairfield County and greater Hartford area markets spoken for, the only markets that would be significantly better served by HVN are the immediate New Haven area, and points east (and as you go east, the population density drops significantly). The market shrinks considerably once you take into account the segments of the population that are already pretty well served.

AA had a Saturday only flight from AVL to DFW for quite some time before it went daily. Saturday is the slowest travel day of the week and yet loads continue to be good. The tree just came down and the displaced threshold has not been moved back, they are awaiting FAA approval. You don't think HVN could support 15-20 or so daily flights on 65-76 RJ's? Just think of the thousands who who drive up I-91 to BDL who would use Tweed and the driving distance from Bridgeport to HPN is 43 miles, whereas HVN is 21 miles, less than half the miles and also avoiding one of I-95 busiest sections. For years people have been used to driving to BDL due to HVN service being sporadic, UA, DL and the perception of HVN being a prop airport. Now AA is using E-175's with a first class section, something HVN has not seen since 1996. I see Tweed's market going from Old Saybrook to Middletown and to Bridgeport and the many small towns in between. That constitutes a large market that can support many more flights. I see a great market and all it takes is for someone to try HVN and they will be hooked, nearby, no hassles and minutes from I-95 and I-91. Years back WN surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those talks. Now with the advent of larger RJ's, Tweed can offer more service

I could in theory see around 15 flights supported by the market; the question is whether carriers have an appetite to serve that market via HVN, and I think they have shown that they really do not. DL could start service to DTW on a CR7 or E75 tomorrow if they wanted to, and UA could do the same to IAD. But they haven't done that in the past and nothing indicates to me that they will be clamoring to do so in the near future. Yes, it would be nice for the communities close to HVN to be able to have a shorter drive to the airport, but to your point they are driving to BDL (or HPN, or LGA, etc.); the carriers are getting them as customers anyway without having to open up a new station at HVN (and incur the additional costs that doing so would entail).

Also, Bridgeport to HPN is 34 miles, per Google Maps, and Bridgeport is probably the extent of HVN's market reach to the west. From Fairfield down HPN becomes the more logical option. And I've tried HVN, and I was not "hooked" - 3 flights to PHL a day as your only commercial service is not going to be a viable option for a lot of travelers (myself included, especially when there are other options with far more service well within reach). And HVN's facilities makes HPN look...palatial (though if you only have 3 regional flights a day, they're appropriate).

I would love to see HVN grow and agree that there is a population around it that can be well served by increased service, but given the market dynamics and the facilities, I don't really see major growth any time in the near future.

The expansion of Tweed is part of the state’s “Two Airport Plan” to help bring commerce and revenue to the area. One point that you brought up that is correct is the actual state of the building itself and not the runways. I think that could possibly be the reason why carriers are holding back from starting service. I flew out of HVN back in the busy days when the 737 and multiple turboprops were departing in sequence....the line to check in was out the door. Airlines looking to serve HVN want to use larger aircraft, and with heightened TSA screening, how would the airport handle three or four RJ’s and an A319 at the same time? There is also a parking issue and traffic issue through local streets. A main interest from the airlines in Southern New England is Florida service. Connecticut sends huge numbers of people there....look at the number of nonstops out of BDL alone...snowbirds, tourists, and business travelers. Airlines are most certainly going to want to use an aircraft with at least 100 seats. The terminal will have to support the masses. Delta could pull that run off no problem range and max takeoff weight-wise with their A220’s at this moment, at least to ATL for the feed...but they are not. I don’t believe it’s because of the market...charge the right fare and advertise and they will come....I believe the facility is the issue. Best route the city and state can take is somehow connect the airport to the highway and build a new five gate terminal with a parking garage on the other end of the field. (Take notes from HPN)
As for routes other than the above described Florida runs, ATL and ORD is a given. Feed the biggest possible hubs. Washington service is at a disadvantage due to New Haven being served extremely well by rail. The Acela is preferred.

How are the flights at ORH doing? Are they still at once daily to JFK MCO FLL DTW and PHL?

CairnterriAIR wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

AA had a Saturday only flight from AVL to DFW for quite some time before it went daily. Saturday is the slowest travel day of the week and yet loads continue to be good. The tree just came down and the displaced threshold has not been moved back, they are awaiting FAA approval. You don't think HVN could support 15-20 or so daily flights on 65-76 RJ's? Just think of the thousands who who drive up I-91 to BDL who would use Tweed and the driving distance from Bridgeport to HPN is 43 miles, whereas HVN is 21 miles, less than half the miles and also avoiding one of I-95 busiest sections. For years people have been used to driving to BDL due to HVN service being sporadic, UA, DL and the perception of HVN being a prop airport. Now AA is using E-175's with a first class section, something HVN has not seen since 1996. I see Tweed's market going from Old Saybrook to Middletown and to Bridgeport and the many small towns in between. That constitutes a large market that can support many more flights. I see a great market and all it takes is for someone to try HVN and they will be hooked, nearby, no hassles and minutes from I-95 and I-91. Years back WN surveyed HVN but the limited runway ended those talks. Now with the advent of larger RJ's, Tweed can offer more service

I could in theory see around 15 flights supported by the market; the question is whether carriers have an appetite to serve that market via HVN, and I think they have shown that they really do not. DL could start service to DTW on a CR7 or E75 tomorrow if they wanted to, and UA could do the same to IAD. But they haven't done that in the past and nothing indicates to me that they will be clamoring to do so in the near future. Yes, it would be nice for the communities close to HVN to be able to have a shorter drive to the airport, but to your point they are driving to BDL (or HPN, or LGA, etc.); the carriers are getting them as customers anyway without having to open up a new station at HVN (and incur the additional costs that doing so would entail).



Also, Bridgeport to HPN is 34 miles, per Google Maps, and Bridgeport is probably the extent of HVN's market reach to the west. From Fairfield down HPN becomes the more logical option. And I've tried HVN, and I was not "hooked" - 3 flights to PHL a day as your only commercial service is not going to be a viable option for a lot of travelers (myself included, especially when there are other options with far more service well within reach). And HVN's facilities makes HPN look...palatial (though if you only have 3 regional flights a day, they're appropriate).

I would love to see HVN grow and agree that there is a population around it that can be well served by increased service, but given the market dynamics and the facilities, I don't really see major growth any time in the near future.

The expansion of Tweed is part of the state’s “Two Airport Plan” to help bring commerce and revenue to the area. One point that you brought up that is correct is the actual state of the building itself and not the runways. I think that could possibly be the reason why carriers are holding back from starting service. I flew out of HVN back in the busy days when the 737 and multiple turboprops were departing in sequence....the line to check in was out the door. Airlines looking to serve HVN want to use larger aircraft, and with heightened TSA screening, how would the airport handle three or four RJ’s and an A319 at the same time? There is also a parking issue and traffic issue through local streets. A main interest from the airlines in Southern New England is Florida service. Connecticut sends huge numbers of people there....look at the number of nonstops out of BDL alone...snowbirds, tourists, and business travelers. Airlines are most certainly going to want to use an aircraft with at least 100 seats. The terminal will have to support the masses. Delta could pull that run off no problem range and max takeoff weight-wise with their A220’s at this moment, at least to ATL for the feed...but they are not. I don’t believe it’s because of the market...charge the right fare and advertise and they will come....I believe the facility is the issue. Best route the city and state can take is somehow connect the airport to the highway and build a new five gate terminal with a parking garage on the other end of the field. (Take notes from HPN)
As for routes other than the above described Florida runs, ATL and ORD is a given. Feed the biggest possible hubs. Washington service is at a disadvantage due to New Haven being served extremely well by rail. The Acela is preferred.

While the state talks about the "Two Airport Plan", its the state that is fighting HVN in court to keep the runway at 5600 feet. HVN won the appeal court case and now the state wants to appeal to the Supreme court. I don't see mainline aircraft at HVN for a while apart from Allegiant, the newer RJ's from 65 to 76 seats are perfect for the market and for the present runway. The terminal while small can handle more that three daily flights, depending on the hub airport connecting times, I think another 3 to 5 or so more flights can accommodated. I too remember when UA had 737's to ORD, it was in the older smaller terminal and it was a madhouse. The route to the airport is not that bad from I-95 and I-91, its only the last street to the airport entrance that is tight and there is a way to alleviate that problem by making one street one way to the airport and another nearby street one way leaving the airport. In the past before 9-11, US had two daily N/S's to DCA that were well supported on Dash-8's, if a slot could open up, a one daily HVN-DCA flight could do well.
I think once the displaced threshold on runway 20 is moved back, that may be tipping point for both DL and UA and UA with the CRJ-550 buildup at ORD, that route would do very well. There is talk of a new terminal and one would involve closing runway 14-32 and the other would be to locate the terminal on the East Haven side of the airport, although there is some resistance to that idea. 2020 will be a year of growth for HVN with AA making the CLT a daily one and either DL or UA starting service.

airlineworker wrote:

CairnterriAIR wrote:

HVNandrew wrote:

I could in theory see around 15 flights supported by the market; the question is whether carriers have an appetite to serve that market via HVN, and I think they have shown that they really do not. DL could start service to DTW on a CR7 or E75 tomorrow if they wanted to, and UA could do the same to IAD. But they haven't done that in the past and nothing indicates to me that they will be clamoring to do so in the near future. Yes, it would be nice for the communities close to HVN to be able to have a shorter drive to the airport, but to your point they are driving to BDL (or HPN, or LGA, etc.); the carriers are getting them as customers anyway without having to open up a new station at HVN (and incur the additional costs that doing so would entail).



Also, Bridgeport to HPN is 34 miles, per Google Maps, and Bridgeport is probably the extent of HVN's market reach to the west. From Fairfield down HPN becomes the more logical option. And I've tried HVN, and I was not "hooked" - 3 flights to PHL a day as your only commercial service is not going to be a viable option for a lot of travelers (myself included, especially when there are other options with far more service well within reach). And HVN's facilities makes HPN look...palatial (though if you only have 3 regional flights a day, they're appropriate).

I would love to see HVN grow and agree that there is a population around it that can be well served by increased service, but given the market dynamics and the facilities, I don't really see major growth any time in the near future.

The expansion of Tweed is part of the state’s “Two Airport Plan” to help bring commerce and revenue to the area. One point that you brought up that is correct is the actual state of the building itself and not the runways. I think that could possibly be the reason why carriers are holding back from starting service. I flew out of HVN back in the busy days when the 737 and multiple turboprops were departing in sequence....the line to check in was out the door. Airlines looking to serve HVN want to use larger aircraft, and with heightened TSA screening, how would the airport handle three or four RJ’s and an A319 at the same time? There is also a parking issue and traffic issue through local streets. A main interest from the airlines in Southern New England is Florida service. Connecticut sends huge numbers of people there....look at the number of nonstops out of BDL alone...snowbirds, tourists, and business travelers. Airlines are most certainly going to want to use an aircraft with at least 100 seats. The terminal will have to support the masses. Delta could pull that run off no problem range and max takeoff weight-wise with their A220’s at this moment, at least to ATL for the feed...but they are not. I don’t believe it’s because of the market...charge the right fare and advertise and they will come....I believe the facility is the issue. Best route the city and state can take is somehow connect the airport to the highway and build a new five gate terminal with a parking garage on the other end of the field. (Take notes from HPN)
As for routes other than the above described Florida runs, ATL and ORD is a given. Feed the biggest possible hubs. Washington service is at a disadvantage due to New Haven being served extremely well by rail. The Acela is preferred.

While the state talks about the "Two Airport Plan", its the state that is fighting HVN in court to keep the runway at 5600 feet. HVN won the appeal court case and now the state wants to appeal to the Supreme court. I don't see mainline aircraft at HVN for a while apart from Allegiant, the newer RJ's from 65 to 76 seats are perfect for the market and for the present runway. The terminal while small can handle more that three daily flights, depending on the hub airport connecting times, I think another 3 to 5 or so more flights can accommodated. I too remember when UA had 737's to ORD, it was in the older smaller terminal and it was a madhouse. The route to the airport is not that bad from I-95 and I-91, its only the last street to the airport entrance that is tight and there is a way to alleviate that problem by making one street one way to the airport and another nearby street one way leaving the airport. In the past before 9-11, US had two daily N/S's to DCA that were well supported on Dash-8's, if a slot could open up, a one daily HVN-DCA flight could do well.
I think once the displaced threshold on runway 20 is moved back, that may be tipping point for both DL and UA and UA with the CRJ-550 buildup at ORD, that route would do very well. There is talk of a new terminal and one would involve closing runway 14-32 and the other would be to locate the terminal on the East Haven side of the airport, although there is some resistance to that idea. 2020 will be a year of growth for HVN with AA making the CLT a daily one and either DL or UA starting service.

Are you positive it’s the state that’s trying to hold things up at HVN? I’ve been reading that the governor as well as most lawmakers are pushing for a regional airport to keep leakage to NYC from happening, and that the resistance from any lawmakers from the state are those who are standing for the local residents living near the airport....pretty much the same NIMBY battle that’s been going on for two decades now.

CairnterriAIR wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

CairnterriAIR wrote:

The expansion of Tweed is part of the state’s “Two Airport Plan” to help bring commerce and revenue to the area. One point that you brought up that is correct is the actual state of the building itself and not the runways. I think that could possibly be the reason why carriers are holding back from starting service. I flew out of HVN back in the busy days when the 737 and multiple turboprops were departing in sequence....the line to check in was out the door. Airlines looking to serve HVN want to use larger aircraft, and with heightened TSA screening, how would the airport handle three or four RJ’s and an A319 at the same time? There is also a parking issue and traffic issue through local streets. A main interest from the airlines in Southern New England is Florida service. Connecticut sends huge numbers of people there....look at the number of nonstops out of BDL alone...snowbirds, tourists, and business travelers. Airlines are most certainly going to want to use an aircraft with at least 100 seats. The terminal will have to support the masses. Delta could pull that run off no problem range and max takeoff weight-wise with their A220’s at this moment, at least to ATL for the feed...but they are not. I don’t believe it’s because of the market...charge the right fare and advertise and they will come....I believe the facility is the issue. Best route the city and state can take is somehow connect the airport to the highway and build a new five gate terminal with a parking garage on the other end of the field. (Take notes from HPN)
As for routes other than the above described Florida runs, ATL and ORD is a given. Feed the biggest possible hubs. Washington service is at a disadvantage due to New Haven being served extremely well by rail. The Acela is preferred.

While the state talks about the "Two Airport Plan", its the state that is fighting HVN in court to keep the runway at 5600 feet. HVN won the appeal court case and now the state wants to appeal to the Supreme court. I don't see mainline aircraft at HVN for a while apart from Allegiant, the newer RJ's from 65 to 76 seats are perfect for the market and for the present runway. The terminal while small can handle more that three daily flights, depending on the hub airport connecting times, I think another 3 to 5 or so more flights can accommodated. I too remember when UA had 737's to ORD, it was in the older smaller terminal and it was a madhouse. The route to the airport is not that bad from I-95 and I-91, its only the last street to the airport entrance that is tight and there is a way to alleviate that problem by making one street one way to the airport and another nearby street one way leaving the airport. In the past before 9-11, US had two daily N/S's to DCA that were well supported on Dash-8's, if a slot could open up, a one daily HVN-DCA flight could do well.
I think once the displaced threshold on runway 20 is moved back, that may be tipping point for both DL and UA and UA with the CRJ-550 buildup at ORD, that route would do very well. There is talk of a new terminal and one would involve closing runway 14-32 and the other would be to locate the terminal on the East Haven side of the airport, although there is some resistance to that idea. 2020 will be a year of growth for HVN with AA making the CLT a daily one and either DL or UA starting service.

Are you positive it’s the state that’s trying to hold things up at HVN? I’ve been reading that the governor as well as most lawmakers are pushing for a regional airport to keep leakage to NYC from happening, and that the resistance from any lawmakers from the state are those who are standing for the local residents living near the airport....pretty much the same NIMBY battle that’s been going on for two decades now.[/quote

The governor has said its a toss up between HVN and BDR. It seems the governor has not done any homework regarding the two airports. HVN's runway is currently at 5600 feet, 900 feet longer than BDR's runway. HVN has 1000 foot turf overruns at both ends. The plan is to pave 1000 feet of the southern overrun and 400-500 feet on the northern overrun. BDR is landlocked and also at a lower elevation than HVN which has caused runway flooding in the past. The only jet airline service BDR had was back in the 80's when Air Wisconsin flew the BAE-146 to ORD. 4700 feet won't work with today's RJ's. The state transportation committee voted to repeal the law by 33 for and 2 against. Then two state reps have managed to kill the bill before it could be voted on to remove the state statute that limits the runway to 5600 feet. The federal appeal court declared the law violates federal laws and it was overturned. There was a partial recording of the appeal trial and the state had no defence for the law when questioned by the judges. I will try to find the link and post it.

BDR would be a very strange choice to pursue as CT's alternate commercial airport. I'm pretty sure the airport itself gave up on getting commercial service back years ago...the terminal was taken down probably a decade ago now. As pointed out above, the runway situation at BDR is worse than at HVN, and the NIMBYs are just as bad. You could argue that it is in a better situated location and that it has easier access to I-95 than HVN, but those are the only two pros I can see for BDR. Seeing meaningful commercial service at BDR in the future would truly be a stunner.

I think the issue with the state and HVN concerning the lawsuit isn't so much a lack of support for HVN, but how the law in question was struck down/invalidated and what that means for the state from a precedent standpoint moving forward. You could have lawmakers who support the airport but would want to see the decision appealed because of the greater impact the ruling could have on the state managing its own affairs.

BDR was served by props for years and now the prop is dead. BDR cannot add to its runways and 4700 feet won't work. Back in the 70's when HVN added to its runway and a state court ruled that extra pavement could not be used in a case filed by the town of East Haven, then a federal court ruled in favor of HVN citing among other points that it violated federal interstate commerce laws, so the latest appeal court ruling gives HVN another victory in that state laws cannot govern airports in the state as that would create chaos if every state had differing laws regarding airport operations. One of the judges asked if BDL had a state law limiting its runways, the states lawyer was lost for words. BDL is a state airport and HVN is not, so the state sees BDL as the only airport in the state warranting airline service. Draw a line around HVN ten miles out and see that a larger market for air travel exists for metro New Haven than does BDL. I feel the states motive is to shield BDL from any state airport offering commercial service.
HVN is much more advanced operationally than BDR having a longer runway that can be expanded and though small, a terminal that can handle more than the present 3 daily flights. Had it not been for the advent of the larger RJ's, E-175's and CRJ-700's and CRJ-550's, HVN would not have commercial airline service.

On the BDL front... I was told this past week by an inside undisclosed source at BDL that CAA is "working" on a flight to SEA or PDX (most likely SEA) as well as "London". What "London" means is beyond me... Heathrow? Gatwick? Stansted? I'm assuming that one could possibly be BA with an A21N or MAYBE FR on the MAX once they're returned to service shortly after?

F9 just started their MIA flight on Thursday evening, full going out back to MIA but horribly slotted for connections. ~7pm arrival into BDL, 8:05p departure back to MIA. Any guesses on what they may add next?

Anyone have any good guesses or more info?

SCHATC422 wrote:

On the BDL front... I was told this past week by an inside undisclosed source at BDL that CAA is "working" on a flight to SEA or PDX (most likely SEA) as well as "London". What "London" means is beyond me... Heathrow? Gatwick? Stansted? I'm assuming that one could possibly be BA with an A21N or MAYBE FR on the MAX once they're returned to service shortly after?

F9 just started their MIA flight on Thursday evening, full going out back to MIA but horribly slotted for connections. ~7pm arrival into BDL, 8:05p departure back to MIA. Any guesses on what they may add next?

Anyone have any good guesses or more info?

I don’t think F9 is going for connections through Miami. AA had that part covered with their morning Miami departure. This new flight seems like it’s an aim for local traffic...mainly snowbirds flying south....a huge market for BDL. The departure time for South Florida is actually excellent....not much of a wait for TSA and for those who wish to work a full day can do so. I think you will see a winner here. As for F9 adding new service out of BDL...I’m sure Las Vegas will come on, or possibly another warm weather destination such as Savannah or Jacksonville.
I can see SEA eventually being started...moreso over Portland. Plenty of Pacific connections and business (Pratt and Whitney) traffic. Sooner or later you will see Alaska 737’s at BDL.

SCHATC422 wrote:

On the BDL front... I was told this past week by an inside undisclosed source at BDL that CAA is "working" on a flight to SEA or PDX (most likely SEA) as well as "London". What "London" means is beyond me... Heathrow? Gatwick? Stansted? I'm assuming that one could possibly be BA with an A21N or MAYBE FR on the MAX once they're returned to service shortly after?

F9 just started their MIA flight on Thursday evening, full going out back to MIA but horribly slotted for connections. ~7pm arrival into BDL, 8:05p departure back to MIA. Any guesses on what they may add next?

Anyone have any good guesses or more info?

i’ve heard this for perhaps a year, and i want to believe this.... but BDL can’t even manage to get AA to LAX and UA to SFO to stick.

i think LHR would be a success, but that’s not really the ultimate question with heathrow. an airline would have to sacrifice a LHR slot and aircraft. can BDL be more profitable than another city, or even additional frequency to NYC or BOS? i’m not so sure.

LGW or STN might be easier to start, but wouldn’t have as much connecting traffic to sustain it compared to LHR.

For SEA, I think DL would be the most likely carrier given their presence on both ends of the route, though if AA does not resume LAX, I think that may be a better add for them.

HVNandrew wrote:

For SEA, I think DL would be the most likely carrier given their presence on both ends of the route, though if AA does not resume LAX, I think that may be a better add for them.

I was told by a friend who works for AA that the LAX flight is discontinued in Jan/Feb because of the strong east to west headwinds. If the MAX comes back I'd definitely believe it would be able to go year round on a MAX but with the current 738, not enough fuel/range for the winter months and headwinds.

BDL-SEA could work well on Delta with the A220.

rnav2dlrey wrote:

SCHATC422 wrote:

On the BDL front... I was told this past week by an inside undisclosed source at BDL that CAA is "working" on a flight to SEA or PDX (most likely SEA) as well as "London". What "London" means is beyond me... Heathrow? Gatwick? Stansted? I'm assuming that one could possibly be BA with an A21N or MAYBE FR on the MAX once they're returned to service shortly after?

F9 just started their MIA flight on Thursday evening, full going out back to MIA but horribly slotted for connections. ~7pm arrival into BDL, 8:05p departure back to MIA. Any guesses on what they may add next?

Anyone have any good guesses or more info?

i’ve heard this for perhaps a year, and i want to believe this.... but BDL can’t even manage to get AA to LAX and UA to SFO to stick.

i think LHR would be a success, but that’s not really the ultimate question with heathrow. an airline would have to sacrifice a LHR slot and aircraft. can BDL be more profitable than another city, or even additional frequency to NYC or BOS? i’m not so sure.

LGW or STN might be easier to start, but wouldn’t have as much connecting traffic to sustain it compared to LHR.

The AA LAX flight is back on the schedule in March. You are correct with LHR...slots are the issue. That and IAG is having no problem sending Europe bound passengers through Dublin for connecting flights from BDL. I’m thinking as more 321’s come on line you could see Gatwick.

airlineworker wrote:

CairnterriAIR wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

While the state talks about the "Two Airport Plan", its the state that is fighting HVN in court to keep the runway at 5600 feet. HVN won the appeal court case and now the state wants to appeal to the Supreme court. I don't see mainline aircraft at HVN for a while apart from Allegiant, the newer RJ's from 65 to 76 seats are perfect for the market and for the present runway. The terminal while small can handle more that three daily flights, depending on the hub airport connecting times, I think another 3 to 5 or so more flights can accommodated. I too remember when UA had 737's to ORD, it was in the older smaller terminal and it was a madhouse. The route to the airport is not that bad from I-95 and I-91, its only the last street to the airport entrance that is tight and there is a way to alleviate that problem by making one street one way to the airport and another nearby street one way leaving the airport. In the past before 9-11, US had two daily N/S's to DCA that were well supported on Dash-8's, if a slot could open up, a one daily HVN-DCA flight could do well.
I think once the displaced threshold on runway 20 is moved back, that may be tipping point for both DL and UA and UA with the CRJ-550 buildup at ORD, that route would do very well. There is talk of a new terminal and one would involve closing runway 14-32 and the other would be to locate the terminal on the East Haven side of the airport, although there is some resistance to that idea. 2020 will be a year of growth for HVN with AA making the CLT a daily one and either DL or UA starting service.

Are you positive it’s the state that’s trying to hold things up at HVN? I’ve been reading that the governor as well as most lawmakers are pushing for a regional airport to keep leakage to NYC from happening, and that the resistance from any lawmakers from the state are those who are standing for the local residents living near the airport....pretty much the same NIMBY battle that’s been going on for two decades now.[/quote

The governor has said its a toss up between HVN and BDR. It seems the governor has not done any homework regarding the two airports. HVN's runway is currently at 5600 feet, 900 feet longer than BDR's runway. HVN has 1000 foot turf overruns at both ends. The plan is to pave 1000 feet of the southern overrun and 400-500 feet on the northern overrun. BDR is landlocked and also at a lower elevation than HVN which has caused runway flooding in the past. The only jet airline service BDR had was back in the 80's when Air Wisconsin flew the BAE-146 to ORD. 4700 feet won't work with today's RJ's. The state transportation committee voted to repeal the law by 33 for and 2 against. Then two state reps have managed to kill the bill before it could be voted on to remove the state statute that limits the runway to 5600 feet. The federal appeal court declared the law violates federal laws and it was overturned. There was a partial recording of the appeal trial and the state had no defence for the law when questioned by the judges. I will try to find the link and post it.

Appeal court case testimony, https://www.facebook.com/tweedfacts/pos ... __tn__=K-R

airlineworker wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

CairnterriAIR wrote:

Are you positive it’s the state that’s trying to hold things up at HVN? I’ve been reading that the governor as well as most lawmakers are pushing for a regional airport to keep leakage to NYC from happening, and that the resistance from any lawmakers from the state are those who are standing for the local residents living near the airport....pretty much the same NIMBY battle that’s been going on for two decades now.[/quote

The governor has said its a toss up between HVN and BDR. It seems the governor has not done any homework regarding the two airports. HVN's runway is currently at 5600 feet, 900 feet longer than BDR's runway. HVN has 1000 foot turf overruns at both ends. The plan is to pave 1000 feet of the southern overrun and 400-500 feet on the northern overrun. BDR is landlocked and also at a lower elevation than HVN which has caused runway flooding in the past. The only jet airline service BDR had was back in the 80's when Air Wisconsin flew the BAE-146 to ORD. 4700 feet won't work with today's RJ's. The state transportation committee voted to repeal the law by 33 for and 2 against. Then two state reps have managed to kill the bill before it could be voted on to remove the state statute that limits the runway to 5600 feet. The federal appeal court declared the law violates federal laws and it was overturned. There was a partial recording of the appeal trial and the state had no defence for the law when questioned by the judges. I will try to find the link and post it.

Appeal court case testimony, https://www.facebook.com/tweedfacts/pos ... __tn__=K-R

Audio testimony https://www.driveplayer.com/#fileIds=10 ... 1527495130

PWM posted October's numbers.
212,065 vs 220,782 October 2018 down 8,717 passengers. Overall the passenger count is over 57K for the year which should bring the total count to around 2.2 million passengers by the end of the year.

BTV's September numbers are out as well.

Enplanements up 3.2% to 62,116 (total PAX 123,207). This growth came despite a -14.5% reduction in departing capacity vs September 2018, driving the monthly load factor up to 84% (from 69%). I would guess the reductions in capacity came form downgauging by AA and UA on PHL and EWR vs last year.

YTD enplanements are up 28k vs 2018 (+5.6%). BTV continues to close the gap with MHT, which saw a -2.7% decline in enplanements for September (down to 69,950).

Will MHT's leadership be able to right the ship before the slow-but-steady growth at BTV eclipses them? Anecdotally I hear from a lot of people in the Upper Valley area of VT/NH (home to Dartmouth College and Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center) who are fed up with MHT's service (especially outside of WN) and are now frequently choosing BTV when they never would've five or ten years ago--though admittedly BOS has benefited the most from this leakage.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vt/burlingtonv ... istics.pdf

BTV's needs to review the headings on their site unless I'm missing something. Comparing September 2019 with September 2019 must be a typo? So do you think MHT will end up with around 1.7 million total passengers to BTV's potential 1.4 million for 2019? The gap is definitely shrinking between the two.