LotsaRunway wrote:

The market will return for international traffic in smaller planes and Logan's Terminal E is already a busy place.

The market will return indeed but Logan's terminal E will be far from busy for many years to come, factoring in the new expansion that's well underway.
I do think that a reconfigured gate with CBP potential would be nice to have in the medium term. I strongly believe that MHT would have already had TATL service at the time when Logan terminal E was bursting at the seams, had they had CBP. The next peak for intl travel feels a long way away but I get the feeling that the investment in such infrastructure is minor. Whether the Feds will one day agree to staff it, is a different story all together.

mjgbtv wrote:

Speaking of cargo, I have noticed that Wiggins is no longer flying to BTV. It appears that a Legacy Airways Saab is now the UPS feeder. Does anyone know why the change? It looks like Wiggins is still flying other routes from MHT.

The Bandeirantes are a rare bird these days anywhere, so it’s a shame they are no longer scheduled. But the Saabs are another nice blast from the past. Business Express used them to BTV, and TW Express for a brief time as well. I’m tempted to say NW Airlink also used them for a short while, but can’t place the details. Might be confusing that with something else.

For anyone interested. The Alton Bay ice runway is open for the season. Definitely worth the ride up to check it out.

Is MHT going to get a new airline anytime soon?

Cboyle wrote:

Is MHT going to get a new airline anytime soon?

As I've mentioned on this thread, who would go in there?

Delta just pulled out and I don't see them in a hurry to go back, especially as they've invested a ton into Boston. Southwest has Florida well covered to the point that anything a JetBlue/Spirit/Frontier would add would really be superfluous, especially as they're in Boston. Allegiant already has PSM and BOS.

As I've said before, MHT's problem is that a huge chunk of it's catchment area (which is mostly south of the airport) overlaps with BOS. Getting to BOS during MHT's peak period in the mid-2000s was a massive pain in the neck for these folks - the Big Dig was still going on and it was not a fun experience trying to get to/from BOS if coming from 93 North, Route 2 or Route 3. Add in that there was very little LCC presence (B6 didn't get to BOS until 2004 and then ramped up over the next four years) and that made it ripe for MHT to flourish.

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

deltairlines wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

Is MHT going to get a new airline anytime soon?

As I've mentioned on this thread, who would go in there?

Delta just pulled out and I don't see them in a hurry to go back, especially as they've invested a ton into Boston. Southwest has Florida well covered to the point that anything a JetBlue/Spirit/Frontier would add would really be superfluous, especially as they're in Boston. Allegiant already has PSM and BOS.

As I've said before, MHT's problem is that a huge chunk of it's catchment area (which is mostly south of the airport) overlaps with BOS. Getting to BOS during MHT's peak period in the mid-2000s was a massive pain in the neck for these folks - the Big Dig was still going on and it was not a fun experience trying to get to/from BOS if coming from 93 North, Route 2 or Route 3. Add in that there was very little LCC presence (B6 didn't get to BOS until 2004 and then ramped up over the next four years) and that made it ripe for MHT to flourish.

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

Maybe breeze would go here? There is demand for B6 and F9 too...

Cboyle wrote:

deltairlines wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

Is MHT going to get a new airline anytime soon?

As I've mentioned on this thread, who would go in there?

Delta just pulled out and I don't see them in a hurry to go back, especially as they've invested a ton into Boston. Southwest has Florida well covered to the point that anything a JetBlue/Spirit/Frontier would add would really be superfluous, especially as they're in Boston. Allegiant already has PSM and BOS.

As I've said before, MHT's problem is that a huge chunk of it's catchment area (which is mostly south of the airport) overlaps with BOS. Getting to BOS during MHT's peak period in the mid-2000s was a massive pain in the neck for these folks - the Big Dig was still going on and it was not a fun experience trying to get to/from BOS if coming from 93 North, Route 2 or Route 3. Add in that there was very little LCC presence (B6 didn't get to BOS until 2004 and then ramped up over the next four years) and that made it ripe for MHT to flourish.

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

Maybe breeze would go here? There is demand for B6 and F9 too...

Breeze is a possibility. Gate space is getting a bit tight in Boston now (I don't think there's really any available gates in BOS right now; granted they aren't being fully utilized but as traffic returns that will fill them up); PVD also looks maxed out on gate space; I believe PWM is also pretty much full now too. That leaves MHT and ORH for serving the Boston area, and MHT is much more appealing than ORH for numerous reasons - namely road connections getting to the airport (MHT shines here, ORH is a nightmare) and runway (though 7000 ft at ORH is more than enough for E190s and A220s).

I don't see B6 happening. They'd be flying to Florida, and WN covers that fine from MHT. With the new AA deal, B6's focus is going to be more New York/Newark flying, rounding out what they can do in Los Angeles and looking for other opportunities - MHT is not one of these.

Same with Frontier - look at what they're doing in BOS and PVD - it's mostly Florida, which is what MHT would be getting.

The two issues with Florida flying from MHT is that Southwest is already there with MCO, TPA and (in-season) FLL, so you're fighting against that. Second, as I keep saying, MHT's population base is to the south of it. Fares from BOS are similar (in many cases, less...some by $150+ round trip) than MHT on the Florida routes. For a family of four, that $600 adds up - even when MHT is $14/day for parking and BOS is $28 for some of the offsite lots. Add in the fact that frequencies out of MHT are minimal (1-2x/day) compared to out of BOS where there's at least 10 nonstops a day to MCO/TPA/FLL/MIA/etc. and it becomes even more in demand.

PVD naturally can support more of this service than MHT - not only is Providence a much larger city than Manchester (Providence's MSA is 1.6M, Manchester's is 400k), but also geographically for these folks, to get to BOS is driving north for an hour to fly south; for MHT, to get to BOS you drive south to fly south, so you're at least going in the right direction.

Could MHT support more Florida flying? In normal times, sure. But you better have a better fare than BOS (which is tough enough to do) and you better be flying more than once a day - otherwise the natural market will have people in the Merrimack Valley from Haverhill up to Nashua continue to keep choosing BOS.

MHT might get Breeze, but I think management there is resigned to it being more attractive as a cargo airport for Amazon Prime. The building announced a couple weeks ago (which will handle three wide-body aircraft) is clearly for them, inasmuch as FedEx and UPS have their own operations. There are Amazon distribution centers sprouting up or on the drawing board within proximity of MHT, so these dots are easy to connect.

As for passengers, it just seems that there's an imbalance of southbound service versus westbound service. The whole world doesn't want to go to Florida. If you want to head west, MHT needs more than MDW (itself a cold-weather place) to connect. PHX-DEN-LAS are three cities WN flew nonstop from MHT, and they pulled all three. Even one of those returning would be a huge help.

deltairlines wrote:

As I've said before, MHT's problem is that a huge chunk of it's catchment area (which is mostly south of the airport) overlaps with BOS. Getting to BOS during MHT's peak period in the mid-2000s was a massive pain in the neck for these folks - the Big Dig was still going on and it was not a fun experience trying to get to/from BOS if coming from 93 North, Route 2 or Route 3. Add in that there was very little LCC presence (B6 didn't get to BOS until 2004 and then ramped up over the next four years) and that made it ripe for MHT to flourish..

Another one of MHT's problem is that flying out of there is significantly more expensive than flying out of BOS, and it requires a connection somewhere unless your destination is Chicago, NY, Baltimore, or Atlanta, basically. But this is the year 2021 and most people have gotten used to getting to their destination non-stop and are just not willing to pay more on top of having to connect. The only way passenger number are going to increase again at MHT is if the airport somehow figures out a way to help the airlines offer competitive fares again. And it sure doesn't help that they increased parking costs too. Given the amount of empty parking lots at MHT they should just give parking away for free. That would be a step in the right direction.

MHT might be a good choice for breeze because I don't think they would do the southwest destinations. They would find the highest o&d cities not Florida or Baltimore or Midway. Breeze could maybe get people driving to Boston not southwest customers.

MHT is a tough spot. Fares at BOS and BTV are almost always lower unless your going to Florida.

deltairlines wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

Is MHT going to get a new airline anytime soon?

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

I often hear this and find that only occasionally, during the right days and weather conditions does it really make it “a breeze.” Quite often, the lower deck backs up before you even get to the tunnels. Sooner or later that is going to need serious work and that will be a game changer for a few years.

deltairlines wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

deltairlines wrote:

As I've mentioned on this thread, who would go in there?

Delta just pulled out and I don't see them in a hurry to go back, especially as they've invested a ton into Boston. Southwest has Florida well covered to the point that anything a JetBlue/Spirit/Frontier would add would really be superfluous, especially as they're in Boston. Allegiant already has PSM and BOS.

As I've said before, MHT's problem is that a huge chunk of it's catchment area (which is mostly south of the airport) overlaps with BOS. Getting to BOS during MHT's peak
in the mid-2000s was a massive pain in the neck for these folks - the Big Dig was still going on and it was not a fun experience trying to get to/from BOS if coming from 93 North, Route 2 or Route 3. Add in that there was very little LCC presence (B6 didn't get to BOS until 2004 and then ramped up over the next four years) and that made it ripe for MHT to flourish.

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

Maybe breeze would go here? There is demand for B6 and F9 too...

Breeze is a possibility. Gate space is getting a bit tight in Boston now (I don't think there's really any available gates in BOS right now; granted they aren't being fully utilized but as traffic returns that will fill them up); PVD also looks maxed out on gate space; I believe PWM is also pretty much full now too. That leaves MHT and ORH for serving the Boston area, and MHT is much more appealing than ORH for numerous reasons - namely road connections getting to the airport (MHT shines here, ORH is a nightmare) and runway (though 7000 ft at ORH is more than enough for E190s and A220s).

I don't see B6 happening. They'd be flying to Florida, and WN covers that fine from MHT. With the new AA deal, B6's focus is going to be more New York/Newark flying, rounding out what they can do in Los Angeles and looking for other opportunities - MHT is not one of these.

Same with Frontier - look at what they're doing in BOS and PVD - it's mostly Florida, which is what MHT would be getting.

The two issues with Florida flying from MHT is that Southwest is already there with MCO, TPA and (in-season) FLL, so you're fighting against that. Second, as I keep saying, MHT's population base is to the south of it. Fares from BOS are similar (in many cases, less...some by $150+ round trip) than MHT on the Florida routes. For a family of four, that $600 adds up - even when MHT is $14/day for parking and BOS is $28 for some of the offsite lots. Add in the fact that frequencies out of MHT are minimal (1-2x/day) compared to out of BOS where there's at least 10 nonstops a day to MCO/TPA/FLL/MIA/etc. and it becomes even more in demand.

PVD naturally can support more of this service than MHT - not only is Providence a much larger city than Manchester (Providence's MSA is 1.6M, Manchester's is 400k), but also geographically for these folks, to get to BOS is driving north for an hour to fly south; for MHT, to get to BOS you drive south to fly south, so you're at least going in the right direction.

Could MHT support more Florida flying? In normal times, sure. But you better have a better fare than BOS (which is tough enough to do) and you better be flying more than once a day - otherwise the natural market will have people in the Merrimack Valley from Haverhill up to Nashua continue to keep choosing BOS.

A few comments on this post. PVD definitely has a larger catchment area and corporate base, but going by MSA populations in New England is almost meaningless since there are so many dividing up the population. There is a whole lot of population in the MHT catchment area than just in the Manchester MSA. That said, competition at BOS is just at another level than at any of the other New England airports. Fares and nonstops are ripe for the taking. MHT started its death spiral when B6 got big enough to have pricing clout that cut away the WN edge that MHT had for several years. Then came consolidation which opened up gates at BOS, and opened the doors to ULCCs, which was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Connectivity and fares at BOS couldn’t be beat. MHT lost passengers and the previous airport management decided to raise fees at MHT. Airlines, pressed to save money where they can, cut back more at MHT to better reduce costs and compete where they had to fight for the big population. Airline fees at MHT increased again and parking rates went up too. Not a smart decision because it only escalated the exodus to BOS. Airlines resigned themselves to offering token service to hubs at fares that offer some level of profit. I fully believe, MHT would fare much better with more nonstops at a competitive fare. Nobody offers much of that now. Unless on sale, WNs fares out of MHT are generally higher than the fares they charge for the same destinations from BOS.

Oh, and Florida from MHT would also do much better with competitive fares. FLL is wide open except for maybe one or two Saturdays in the spring. MCO could handle more and I think There may be another option or two with something smaller than 143 seats. PVD , BDL, and PWM have a lot of capacity to Florida thanks to F9 and it’s market stimulation. I also don’t think B6 is out of consideration for MHT. There is opportunity there but I don’t think they find the cost of opportunity balances just yet. It is getting closer IMHO.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

MHT might get Breeze, but I think management there is resigned to it being more attractive as a cargo airport for Amazon Prime. The building announced a couple weeks ago (which will handle three wide-body aircraft) is clearly for them, inasmuch as FedEx and UPS have their own operations. There are Amazon distribution centers sprouting up or on the drawing board within proximity of MHT, so these dots are easy to connect.

As for passengers, it just seems that there's an imbalance of southbound service versus westbound service. The whole world doesn't want to go to Florida. If you want to head west, MHT needs more than MDW (itself a cold-weather place) to connect. PHX-DEN-LAS are three cities WN flew nonstop from MHT, and they pulled all three. Even one of those returning would be a huge help.

Yes and yes, MHT is focusing on cargo because they can win there and reduce costs for all airlines. In the long haul, and winning there will once again make the airport more cost competitive for airline operations. I also agree that people seem willing to use MHT for north south flights but not to the west. It might have to do with the nonstop issue. Once COVID is behind us more and airport costs come down some more, I could see DEN and/or LAS being restarted by WN. F9 or Breeze could start DEN on day one if they came to town.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

MHT might be a good choice for breeze because I don't think they would do the southwest destinations. They would find the highest o&d cities not Florida or Baltimore or Midway. Breeze could maybe get people driving to Boston not southwest customers.

MHT is a tough spot. Fares at BOS and BTV are almost always lower unless your going to Florida.

??? MHT is a WN destination. If Breeze avoided WN cities then they would be leaving a lot on the table. I think they want places that can be stimulated by nonstop service at a reasonable price. They could easily do that at MHT, but almost every meaningful market out of BOS is already connected.

Sorry slcdeltarumd11! I just reread your post and I realize I misread your intentions. I agree with your post.

I'm interested to see who fills the NYC void now that DL has pulled out and UA switching to IAD. The obvious answer is a daily LGA RON flight from AA as DL did, but there is room there.

Peace

bomber996 wrote:

I'm interested to see who fills the NYC void now that DL has pulled out and UA switching to IAD. The obvious answer is a daily LGA RON flight from AA as DL did, but there is room there.

Peace

It's quite possible that MHT will be without a NYC link.

AA to LGA would have the highest possibility of that happening, but with the JetBlue alliance now, I don't see it happening. There are much bigger fish for AA and B6 to catch with scarce LGA slots.

It's a market type where families are going to be more apt to drive (it's a four hour drive); for business travelers, a RON rotation (leaving MHT at 0600-0700, arrival back at 2200-0000) wouldn't be ideal to the business traveler (especially on the arrival end) - a business traveler isn't really going to want to be taking a flight back home at 2100-2200 when they could easily take a flight to BOS and have options every hour on AA/B6 or DL - especially when that flight out could be anywhere between 1700 and 1900 (peak preferred business time channels to go back home).

BTV receiving a $14.5 million grant for terminal work: https://www.news10.com/news/vt-news/burlington-international-airport-secures-funding-for-large-terminal-expansion/

PVD523 wrote:

BTV receiving a $14.5 million grant for terminal work: https://www.news10.com/news/vt-news/burlington-international-airport-secures-funding-for-large-terminal-expansion/

The way this reads, the expansion is dedicated to the security-screening consolidation and new security lanes, that we've read about here before. So this is not a terminal expansion in the sense that people might think of first, i.e. in terms of added gates or a new airside pier, or a customs and immigration hall, etc. I'm not knocking it - the security work is needed. All of us that have flown through BTV are familiar with the split security setup. But it sounds like the gate situation will remain the same.

I'll also miss the pre-security access to the old ATC tower. That was something very distinctive about the airport. And as I understand it, that's already gone - I haven't been through since early 2020, but I think it was behind security even then. Nonetheless, I'll look forward to seeing the changes.

LotsaRunway wrote:

deltairlines wrote:

Once the Big Dig was done and it was a breeze getting to BOS from 93/2/3 plus JetBlue bringing airfares down significantly (and adding more frequencies) really pulled that traffic right back to BOS.

I often hear this and find that only occasionally, during the right days and weather conditions does it really make it “a breeze.” Quite often, the lower deck backs up before you even get to the tunnels. Sooner or later that is going to need serious work and that will be a game changer for a few years.

At rush hour "a breeze" is not a word I'd use to describe this drive ever however, a huge portion of people who live in southern NH are used to commuting to Boston/MA every day for work. They are not going to even bat an eye at flying from Logan if it's cheaper and offers better flights. The traffic debate was over a long time ago. It's all about cost, and MHT has a lot of work to do in that area. There was that time when MHT was offering a free airport shuttle from Boston and no one showed up. Why? Because flying from MHT is expensive.
By the way, if you detour via 128N/Rt-1aS, it's about the same drive time as I-93S thru the tunnel when traffic is really backed up on 93. I've done that a few times. It looks like a long detour on the map but you're always moving. Rt1/Rt1a is not nearly as congested as I-93.

B595 wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

BTV receiving a $14.5 million grant for terminal work: https://www.news10.com/news/vt-news/burlington-international-airport-secures-funding-for-large-terminal-expansion/

The way this reads, the expansion is dedicated to the security-screening consolidation and new security lanes, that we've read about here before. So this is not a terminal expansion in the sense that people might think of first, i.e. in terms of added gates or a new airside pier, or a customs and immigration hall, etc. I'm not knocking it - the security work is needed. All of us that have flown through BTV are familiar with the split security setup. But it sounds like the gate situation will remain the same.

I'll also miss the pre-security access to the old ATC tower. That was something very distinctive about the airport. And as I understand it, that's already gone - I haven't been through since early 2020, but I think it was behind security even then. Nonetheless, I'll look forward to seeing the changes.

For now it is screening, but I believe there will be some space which might be used for other expansion in the future. It is a two-story building but the screening area only uses one level. As I recall there is quite a lot of space on the other level with no specific plans at this time.

airbazar wrote:

At rush hour "a breeze" is not a word I'd use to describe this drive ever however, a huge portion of people who live in southern NH are used to commuting to Boston/MA every day for work. They are not going to even bat an eye at flying from Logan if it's cheaper and offers better flights. The traffic debate was over a long time ago. It's all about cost, and MHT has a lot of work to do in that area.

I did choke on the word "breeze" as well.

I think some people have "tuned out" the pain of dealing with Boston rush hour traffic, but others are still sensitive to it.

Boston area rush hour traffic may be better than it used to be, but it still makes moving around the area a big pain in the butt for many hours of the day especially week days and it happens at times that are quite often used for airline departures and arrivals.

Yet traffic is just one part of the equation as you say, and people will find ways to deal with the traffic if the overall cost is lower and you can find a workable itinerary.

MHT is in something of a death spiral in that regard. It had its peak of the 90s and 00s but by the late 00s and onward the Big Dig was winding down and the big 6 airlines merged and went through bankruptcy and became the big 3 so terminal space opened up at Logan and set up an environment with lots of competition and lots of choices.

MHT lost revenue so felt they had to raise prices to fund the expensive build-out they had done, which made it even easier for airlines to leave or cut services and potential replacements to stay away. The ones that have stayed by necessity are popular services (i.e. WN to Florida) and often sell out early for peak travel periods, so even more people find themselves looking elsewhere due to lack of choice.

That's pretty much what has happened to me the last few times I've traveled domestically. I look at MHT first for convenience but find high airfares and high parking charges and very little choice in itinerary. The next choice becomes looking at BOS, and to avoid traffic stress I figure in the cost of a shuttle as well as off-airport parking options. The shuttles run often enough to not be too much of an inconvenience, but having your own car in a nearby parking lot also relieves the stress of not wondering if/when the shuttle will pick you up. This ends up making the cost vs convenience matrix a bit complicated, but BOS often wins.

TBH in the covid era I have not traveled by air so if/when I have to travel again I would have to re-evaluate based on the current state of vaccination etc.

Revelation wrote:

MHT lost revenue so felt they had to raise prices to fund the expensive build-out they had done, which made it even easier for airlines to leave or cut services and potential replacements to stay away. The ones that have stayed by necessity are popular services (i.e. WN to Florida) and often sell out early for peak travel periods, so even more people find themselves looking elsewhere due to lack of choice.

U.S. passenger airports are municipally owned and don't have the option of running long-term deficits. Spend the rainy day fund (if they ever built one), cut costs, or raise rates. If a big fraction of airports revenues goes to debt service (from the expansion), maintenance, and utilities, they're pretty much stuck. City budgets don't have the money to fill the deepening hole.

If flights are selling out early somebody's doing RM profoundly wrong. The last of seat inventory should be sold at 61 minutes before scheduled departure at something north of $1 a mile.

I live in Manchester and if I’m paying for the flight I fly out of Manchester the main reason being is to support local businesses.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

MHT lost revenue so felt they had to raise prices to fund the expensive build-out they had done, which made it even easier for airlines to leave or cut services and potential replacements to stay away. The ones that have stayed by necessity are popular services (i.e. WN to Florida) and often sell out early for peak travel periods, so even more people find themselves looking elsewhere due to lack of choice.

U.S. passenger airports are municipally owned and don't have the option of running long-term deficits. Spend the rainy day fund (if they ever built one), cut costs, or raise rates. If a big fraction of airports revenues goes to debt service (from the expansion), maintenance, and utilities, they're pretty much stuck. City budgets don't have the money to fill the deepening hole.

If flights are selling out early somebody's doing RM profoundly wrong. The last of seat inventory should be sold at 61 minutes before scheduled departure at something north of $1 a mile.

That might be harder for a leisure-oriented route. Seems like it would matter more that the last seat does sell than when it sells. I'm sure that WN is looking after the revenue no matter what.

I've only seen the one external rendering that's been in the articles, but I'll be pretty happy with even just a security update. A single checkpoint would likely bring a dedicated pre-check lane and reduce congestion and lines extending down the hall or into the ticketing areas. The north-south connector placed the old ATC tower in the secure side so it would be really nice if this project could include some kind of public observation area.

I was hoping for at least a new gate or two, even better if it could support a mainline aircraft, but this is still good news. However, given the recent history of non-airport projects here in Burlington, I can only hope it stays on schedule.

mjgbtv wrote:

B595 wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

BTV receiving a $14.5 million grant for terminal work: https://www.news10.com/news/vt-news/burlington-international-airport-secures-funding-for-large-terminal-expansion/

The way this reads, the expansion is dedicated to the security-screening consolidation and new security lanes, that we've read about here before. So this is not a terminal expansion in the sense that people might think of first, i.e. in terms of added gates or a new airside pier, or a customs and immigration hall, etc. I'm not knocking it - the security work is needed. All of us that have flown through BTV are familiar with the split security setup. But it sounds like the gate situation will remain the same.

I'll also miss the pre-security access to the old ATC tower. That was something very distinctive about the airport. And as I understand it, that's already gone - I haven't been through since early 2020, but I think it was behind security even then. Nonetheless, I'll look forward to seeing the changes.

For now it is screening, but I believe there will be some space which might be used for other expansion in the future. It is a two-story building but the screening area only uses one level. As I recall there is quite a lot of space on the other level with no specific plans at this time.

EricBTV wrote:

I've only seen the one external rendering that's been in the articles, but I'll be pretty happy with even just a security update. A single checkpoint would likely bring a dedicated pre-check lane and reduce congestion and lines extending down the hall or into the ticketing areas. The north-south connector placed the old ATC tower in the secure side so it would be really nice if this project could include some kind of public observation area.

I was hoping for at least a new gate or two, even better if it could support a mainline aircraft, but this is still good news. However, given the recent history of non-airport projects here in Burlington, I can only hope it stays on schedule.

mjgbtv wrote:

B595 wrote:

The way this reads, the expansion is dedicated to the security-screening consolidation and new security lanes, that we've read about here before. So this is not a terminal expansion in the sense that people might think of first, i.e. in terms of added gates or a new airside pier, or a customs and immigration hall, etc. I'm not knocking it - the security work is needed. All of us that have flown through BTV are familiar with the split security setup. But it sounds like the gate situation will remain the same.

I'll also miss the pre-security access to the old ATC tower. That was something very distinctive about the airport. And as I understand it, that's already gone - I haven't been through since early 2020, but I think it was behind security even then. Nonetheless, I'll look forward to seeing the changes.

For now it is screening, but I believe there will be some space which might be used for other expansion in the future. It is a two-story building but the screening area only uses one level. As I recall there is quite a lot of space on the other level with no specific plans at this time.

Here you go. I finally managed to track this down again yesterday: https://go.boarddocs.com/vt/burlingtonv ... .18.19.pdf

If you're referring to the Pit I think it's safe to say this will move along faster!

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Isn’t every airport in contact with several carriers?

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Well I hope they are talking to airlines that is there job! Southwest recently added a bunch of new routes but nothing for Manchester. The airport needs to lower the fees to the airlines. Someone above mentioned the raising of the parking fees for long term to $14 a day in the garage but also lowered it from $17 witch was the original daily price good for some bad for others. They’ve close lot C and all employee parking is in the garage to help cut costs on winter cleanup last time I pasted through they’ve stop clearing those lots. Amazon is using lot F and part of C. Dealerships are using lots E G and part of C. UPS is using part of lot D for trailer storage. Making money where they can. Right now the airport is only using the same part of the terminal that opened back in the mid90s.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Isn’t every airport in contact with several carriers?

They said this time that they expect more airlines in the “coming weeks”

“ As travel hopefully increases in the coming weeks, we hope to be able to announce the return of flights as well. We can't give an exact estimate, unfortunately, but we hope to be able to give one very soon.”
-MHT

Cboyle wrote:

“ As travel hopefully increases in the coming weeks, we hope to be able to announce the return of flights as well. We can't give an exact estimate, unfortunately, but we hope to be able to give one very soon.”
-MHT

Well I can tell you this I was originally booked to Phoenix through Chicago Midway those flights were changed and now I booked through Baltimore because they pulled the Chicago flights from the schedule for the beginning of April.

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Choose one:
A: MHT feels a real chance to land Breeze and know that it will awaken the market and get the attention of other carriers who will want to respond.
B: MHT has a canned, but upbeat message that they share when asked about its future air services

LotsaRunway wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Choose one:
A: MHT feels a real chance to land Breeze and know that it will awaken the market and get the attention of other carriers who will want to respond.
B: MHT has a canned, but upbeat message that they share when asked about its future air services

I hope I’m very wrong but I pick B.

EricBTV wrote:

I've only seen the one external rendering that's been in the articles, but I'll be pretty happy with even just a security update. A single checkpoint would likely bring a dedicated pre-check lane and reduce congestion and lines extending down the hall or into the ticketing areas. The north-south connector placed the old ATC tower in the secure side so it would be really nice if this project could include some kind of public observation area.

I was hoping for at least a new gate or two, even better if it could support a mainline aircraft, but this is still good news. However, given the recent history of non-airport projects here in Burlington, I can only hope it stays on schedule.

mjgbtv wrote:

B595 wrote:

The way this reads, the expansion is dedicated to the security-screening consolidation and new security lanes, that we've read about here before. So this is not a terminal expansion in the sense that people might think of first, i.e. in terms of added gates or a new airside pier, or a customs and immigration hall, etc. I'm not knocking it - the security work is needed. All of us that have flown through BTV are familiar with the split security setup. But it sounds like the gate situation will remain the same.

I'll also miss the pre-security access to the old ATC tower. That was something very distinctive about the airport. And as I understand it, that's already gone - I haven't been through since early 2020, but I think it was behind security even then. Nonetheless, I'll look forward to seeing the changes.

For now it is screening, but I believe there will be some space which might be used for other expansion in the future. It is a two-story building but the screening area only uses one level. As I recall there is quite a lot of space on the other level with no specific plans at this time.

I spoke to the Airport Director not long ago, and he said the plan is to eventually knock down the current south concourse and put the gates upstairs in the new security wing and have all gates in a row on the 2nd floor. Pulling the gates back will allow for more mainline aircraft whose tails would otherwise hang out into the taxiway, the way the south concourse is currently configured. In my opinion, this can't happen fast enough. The south concourse made sense back in the days of the Beechcraft flying pax to the likes of RUT, ALB, PBG and BOS... But now it's just one of the worst uses of airport space I've ever seen.

This has federal grants attached to it. BTV will want to do this ASAP.

There is no doubt that the airport could use help and be improved. Connecting the two sides was a brilliant band aid fix for now. I've used it a few times. When you get stuck behind security with a delay you really appreciate the ability to walk and post pandemic will provide alot of benefits. Also in these unusual times only having one security line open, those box containers paid for themselves several times over already with savings.

BTV290 wrote:

[I spoke to the Airport Director not long ago, and he said the plan is to eventually knock down the current south concourse and put the gates upstairs in the new security wing and have all gates in a row on the 2nd floor. Pulling the gates back will allow for more mainline aircraft whose tails would otherwise hang out into the taxiway, the way the south concourse is currently configured. In my opinion, this can't happen fast enough. The south concourse made sense back in the days of the Beechcraft flying pax to the likes of RUT, ALB, PBG and BOS... But now it's just one of the worst uses of airport space I've ever seen.

Interesting take. Speaking as a passenger, I’ve always liked the south concourse. The thing that gets me scratching my head and asking, “What were they thinking?” is that long, narrow arm of gates from the north concourse with utterly insufficient seating / waiting area. Seems to suggest that they had a tight budget and couldn’t build a proper airside pier.

B595 wrote:

BTV290 wrote:

[I spoke to the Airport Director not long ago, and he said the plan is to eventually knock down the current south concourse and put the gates upstairs in the new security wing and have all gates in a row on the 2nd floor. Pulling the gates back will allow for more mainline aircraft whose tails would otherwise hang out into the taxiway, the way the south concourse is currently configured. In my opinion, this can't happen fast enough. The south concourse made sense back in the days of the Beechcraft flying pax to the likes of RUT, ALB, PBG and BOS... But now it's just one of the worst uses of airport space I've ever seen.

Interesting take. Speaking as a passenger, I’ve always liked the south concourse. The thing that gets me scratching my head and asking, “What were they thinking?” is that long, narrow arm of gates from the north concourse with utterly insufficient seating / waiting area. Seems to suggest that they had a tight budget and couldn’t build a proper airside pier.

Even in these covid times there isn't enough seats in that section. No one will miss that narrow arm of gates.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

B595 wrote:

BTV290 wrote:

[I spoke to the Airport Director not long ago, and he said the plan is to eventually knock down the current south concourse and put the gates upstairs in the new security wing and have all gates in a row on the 2nd floor. Pulling the gates back will allow for more mainline aircraft whose tails would otherwise hang out into the taxiway, the way the south concourse is currently configured. In my opinion, this can't happen fast enough. The south concourse made sense back in the days of the Beechcraft flying pax to the likes of RUT, ALB, PBG and BOS... But now it's just one of the worst uses of airport space I've ever seen.

Interesting take. Speaking as a passenger, I’ve always liked the south concourse. The thing that gets me scratching my head and asking, “What were they thinking?” is that long, narrow arm of gates from the north concourse with utterly insufficient seating / waiting area. Seems to suggest that they had a tight budget and couldn’t build a proper airside pier.

Even in these covid times there isn't enough seats in that section. No one will miss that narrow arm of gates.

Given the available space it was probably a choice of gates or seating. I don't think that area is going away any time soon, though.

The MHT bubble burst some time ago. Flyers realize BOS has many more options and a good list of N/S international flights.

tomaheath wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

Cboyle wrote:

I contacted MHT today and they said that as more passengers come, they are talking to “several” new airlines and their existing carriers (UA, AA, WN) about new routes. I’m sure B6 and F9 are on the list as well as breeze, and maybe SY and NK too. G4 is never coming as they serve PSM 30 minutes east

Choose one:
A: MHT feels a real chance to land Breeze and know that it will awaken the market and get the attention of other carriers who will want to respond.
B: MHT has a canned, but upbeat message that they share when asked about its future air services

I hope I’m very wrong but I pick B.

It's been B for the past 10 years so nothing shocking there. I'm not kidding. That's been their canned statement for as a long as I can remember but then again, every airport is always talking to airlines as mentioned above. The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

airlineworker wrote:

The MHT bubble burst some time ago. Flyers realize BOS has many more options and a good list of N/S international flights.

For commercial passenger traffic, yes. MHT's future is with cargo carriers. They are the nearest airport to greater Boston and northern MA with capacity to expand cargo ops. That's a huge market for Amazon. Amazon last mile distribution centers are sprouting like mushrooms all across MA and the new cargo facility being built at MHT is most likely part of this expansion.

airbazar wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

Choose one:
A: MHT feels a real chance to land Breeze and know that it will awaken the market and get the attention of other carriers who will want to respond.
B: MHT has a canned, but upbeat message that they share when asked about its future air services

I hope I’m very wrong but I pick B.

It's been B for the past 10 years so nothing shocking there. I'm not kidding. That's been their canned statement for as a long as I can remember but then again, every airport is always talking to airlines as mentioned above. The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

airlineworker wrote:

The MHT bubble burst some time ago. Flyers realize BOS has many more options and a good list of N/S international flights.

For commercial passenger traffic, yes. MHT's future is with cargo carriers. They are the nearest airport to greater Boston and northern MA with capacity to expand cargo ops. That's a huge market for Amazon. Amazon last mile distribution centers are sprouting like mushrooms all across MA and the new cargo facility being built at MHT is most likely part of this expansion.

So, the interesting thing will be to see if cargo pays enough of the bills via landing fees and land rent to make it so MHT can afford to 'make a deal' to lure someone like Breeze whose business model is akin to the WN model of decades ago, find under utilized secondary airports with low fees, pass the savings on to customers.

I guess it'd be hard to do any financial analysis since travel is so impacted by covid so it'd be difficult to come to our own conclusion on this.

Last time I read MHT was in dire straits financially so giving anyone a price break was not feasible.

Having a good cargo hub is nice, but I would think taxpayers support the airport largely because they want cheap and convenient air travel for themselves, not so much for the stuff they buy on Amazon. Yes, cargo is important too, yet it's not got the same visibility as passenger aviation does.

Here’s another message from MHT: “ we are actively talking with current airlines at MHT as well as some hopeful new airlines! We will announce new airlines/flights or airline returns as soon as we can. Be on the lookout soon!”

airbazar wrote:

The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

The Hudson Logistics Center will comprise three buildings about 1m SF each, and a third almost as big. The two larger ones will be Amazon. It's a mere ten miles up Route 3 from there to MHT, where the new cargo facility will go. These dots are easy to connect. But by the time they do, I'll be living near Charleston, SC so I'll wave my flag from there.

Revelation wrote:

airbazar wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

I hope I’m very wrong but I pick B.

It's been B for the past 10 years so nothing shocking there. I'm not kidding. That's been their canned statement for as a long as I can remember but then again, every airport is always talking to airlines as mentioned above. The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

airlineworker wrote:

The MHT bubble burst some time ago. Flyers realize BOS has many more options and a good list of N/S international flights.

For commercial passenger traffic, yes. MHT's future is with cargo carriers. They are the nearest airport to greater Boston and northern MA with capacity to expand cargo ops. That's a huge market for Amazon. Amazon last mile distribution centers are sprouting like mushrooms all across MA and the new cargo facility being built at MHT is most likely part of this expansion.

So, the interesting thing will be to see if cargo pays enough of the bills via landing fees and land rent to make it so MHT can afford to 'make a deal' to lure someone like Breeze whose business model is akin to the WN model of decades ago, find under utilized secondary airports with low fees, pass the savings on to customers.

I guess it'd be hard to do any financial analysis since travel is so impacted by covid so it'd be difficult to come to our own conclusion on this.

Last time I read MHT was in dire straits financially so giving anyone a price break was not feasible.

Having a good cargo hub is nice, but I would think taxpayers support the airport largely because they want cheap and convenient air travel for themselves, not so much for the stuff they buy on Amazon. Yes, cargo is important too, yet it's not got the same visibility as passenger aviation does.

No parking revenue for cargo either...

Revelation wrote:

airbazar wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

I hope I’m very wrong but I pick B.

It's been B for the past 10 years so nothing shocking there. I'm not kidding. That's been their canned statement for as a long as I can remember but then again, every airport is always talking to airlines as mentioned above. The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

airlineworker wrote:

The MHT bubble burst some time ago. Flyers realize BOS has many more options and a good list of N/S international flights.

For commercial passenger traffic, yes. MHT's future is with cargo carriers. They are the nearest airport to greater Boston and northern MA with capacity to expand cargo ops. That's a huge market for Amazon. Amazon last mile distribution centers are sprouting like mushrooms all across MA and the new cargo facility being built at MHT is most likely part of this expansion.

So, the interesting thing will be to see if cargo pays enough of the bills via landing fees and land rent to make it so MHT can afford to 'make a deal' to lure someone like Breeze whose business model is akin to the WN model of decades ago, find under utilized secondary airports with low fees, pass the savings on to customers.

Here's a spin on NH's state motto that often applies to business: "Change or die".
Maybe they shouldn't be wasting money on trying to attract Breeze or any other new airline,at all. MHT will have to change the way they do business and adapt to the the new way of life.

ChrisNH38 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

The difference this time however is that a new airline is actually coming and it's called Amazon Air.

The Hudson Logistics Center will comprise three buildings about 1m SF each, and a third almost as big. The two larger ones will be Amazon. It's a mere ten miles up Route 3 from there to MHT, where the new cargo facility will go. These dots are easy to connect. But by the time they do, I'll be living near Charleston, SC so I'll wave my flag from there.

Interesting article on the project: https://www.lowellsun.com/2020/11/24/ne ... in-hudson/

Kinda sad to be losing the pretty golf course for some ugly buildings and lots of truck traffic. Regardless of whose numbers you believe, there will be a lot of truck traffic. Yet it is in as good a place as one can hope for to minimize traffic, right near a major on/off ramp network.

airbazar wrote:

Here's a spin on NH's state motto that often applies to business: "Change or die".
Maybe they shouldn't be wasting money on trying to attract Breeze or any other new airline,at all. MHT will have to change the way they do business and adapt to the the new way of life.

The problem as I understand it is the bonds to pay for the airport were financed assuming a much higher traffic level than what we had pre-covid, never mind post-covid.

I'm not sure cargo traffic and a few thin spoke passenger routes will be enough to sustain the airport long term.

Maybe it's a matter of understanding what the realistic future revenue expectations are, and doing a refinancing to stretch out the repayment period and make the debt situation more manageable.

Apparently this was underway in 2019 ( ref: https://www.unionleader.com/news/busine ... 6fd23.html ) but could not find any indication of if it was resolved or not.

A bond rating review as of 2017 ( ref: https://www.flymanchester.com/wp-conten ... 840644.pdf ) describes "a small-hub airport with still-declining passenger traffic, a high debt burden, and weak debt service coverage (DSC) levels". As for upside, "We do not expect to raise the rating during the two-year outlook period due to the relatively high debt load for the rating category and our expectation that the airport's overall credit profile will remain largely the same.". I think we can concur this is the reality of the situation, no?

Yet I agree on the "adapt or die" situation. Southern NH has had a pretty heavy reliance on retail. Clearly covid has boosted e-commerce tremendously. IMO it won't make up the gap, but you have to go where the opportunities take you.

I think of Breeze as an opportunity, but not one too likely to happen given the high debt load MHT has to pass on to tenants. Maybe in the long term cargo will give them a strong base to use to rebuild their passenger offerings, but from what I can see it will take a long time for that to happen.

Thank you very much @mjgbtv! This is great information and agrees with @BTV290's comment as well.

I agree with the comments about the south concourse being wasted space, especially with Gate 12 now retired. Looking at Google Maps it's very obvious and even for the north concourse expansion as well. This is obviously 10-20 year hindsight, but as a non-expert it seems they could have added 4-ish gates in either direction without the jogged or lollipop designs. At least the south concourse was built in the era of small RJ ops as it used to be mostly full of CRJs and ERJs along with the JetBlue gate. I hope these long term plans come to be as that would be a great improvement on BTV, and I see it as a key for more service. WN and other LCC/ULCC fly mainline aircraft.

As for my other project comment, yes, I'm referring to "The Pit" along with Exit 16, and probably the F-35s too. @slcdeltarumd11 makes a great point about the federal grant. I hope they're right, and apologize for being cynical, but I've just learned to not underestimate Burlington nimbys. However, I digress as that would be off-topic.

mjgbtv wrote:

EricBTV wrote:

I've only seen the one external rendering that's been in the articles, but I'll be pretty happy with even just a security update. A single checkpoint would likely bring a dedicated pre-check lane and reduce congestion and lines extending down the hall or into the ticketing areas. The north-south connector placed the old ATC tower in the secure side so it would be really nice if this project could include some kind of public observation area.

I was hoping for at least a new gate or two, even better if it could support a mainline aircraft, but this is still good news. However, given the recent history of non-airport projects here in Burlington, I can only hope it stays on schedule.

mjgbtv wrote:

For now it is screening, but I believe there will be some space which might be used for other expansion in the future. It is a two-story building but the screening area only uses one level. As I recall there is quite a lot of space on the other level with no specific plans at this time.

Here you go. I finally managed to track this down again yesterday: https://go.boarddocs.com/vt/burlingtonv ... .18.19.pdf

If you're referring to the Pit I think it's safe to say this will move along faster!

So amazing that the Vt ANG got those F-35s so early!
Must admit those Canadians (only 650 miles north) are pretty scary...

Build it and they will come, sounds nice but is not realistic. ORH built a nice new terminal that now rings hollow. MHT took a chance and for a while did fairly good, then Allegiant, Southwest, Spirit, JetBlue came to BOS and MHT's allure vanished.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Must admit those Canadians (only 650 miles north) are pretty scary...

Meant 65 miles north...

B595 wrote:

BTV290 wrote:

[I spoke to the Airport Director not long ago, and he said the plan is to eventually knock down the current south concourse and put the gates upstairs in the new security wing and have all gates in a row on the 2nd floor. Pulling the gates back will allow for more mainline aircraft whose tails would otherwise hang out into the taxiway, the way the south concourse is currently configured. In my opinion, this can't happen fast enough. The south concourse made sense back in the days of the Beechcraft flying pax to the likes of RUT, ALB, PBG and BOS... But now it's just one of the worst uses of airport space I've ever seen.

Interesting take. Speaking as a passenger, I’ve always liked the south concourse. The thing that gets me scratching my head and asking, “What were they thinking?” is that long, narrow arm of gates from the north concourse with utterly insufficient seating / waiting area. Seems to suggest that they had a tight budget and couldn’t build a proper airside pier.

I think budget and space was part of it--but it has completely deviated from the original function, which wasn't terrible. If you notice, before you enter the north pier, there's a glass wall with automatic doors (which are now permanently open). The concept with this area was originally to have the gate podiums (I believe one is still there) up by that glass wall. All passengers waited in the large open area, then during boarding, they'd get their boarding pass scanned at the glass wall, and then they'd peel off at their appropriate gate... Similar to concourse A in IAD, or defunct concourse E in SLC/C in CVG... However, in BTV, this was mixing and matching airlines and gave rise to ummm... Security concerns? So very quickly, the "row of gate doors" idea was abandoned, the doors were opened, and the podiums were moved down into the actual pier which is how it is today... And it was absolutely not built for that...