B752OS wrote:

DL is building a 22k sqf SkyClub in the E expansion, so it's not surprising Massport is going to give them some benefits. I believe all of the former clubs in the lower levels are gone to make way for expanded customs facilities.

It's always fun to speculate, and something that's been done in the sub as far as expansions for terminal A. We'll all just have to be patient as any sort of moves are not going to materialize before 2029-2030.

Sounds like it’s going to be a nice SkyClub DL has planned for the new E expansion.

With the basement clubs closing does that mean BOS will lose AF & VS Clubhouse lounges as all ST partners (KE, AF, KL, VS, AZ) will use the new SkyClub?

Any word on whether any other new lounges will open in the new E extension? Turkish? Amex Centurion?

Magnum9 wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

I had dinner tonight with the Director of Sales for Delta in Boston and he outlined a few things I found to be very interesting;

-Delta is studying very closely the addition of BOS-BOG on an A330 (in conjunction with LATAM)
-Looking to increase frequency on BOS-GRU, possibly using DL metal
-Delta is basically tapped out in terms of adding new domestic markets; looking at further expansion to Europe
-BOS-Barcelona is actively being talked about
-BOS-ROC is coming to an end
-Delta made a significant investment in the Terminal E expansion and they will have first rights to the new gates, where all other international carriers will shift primarily to existing E gates
-Delta and Massport have been in active discussions about the future of Terminal A and they are looking to expand; 2 possibilities are being discussed- 1) Once the A-B post-security connector is done, taking over a portion of Terminal B; 2) moving FedEx and adding an expansion to Terminal A. He said what’s being discussed is taking out the FedEx facility and either moving them further down where the old Eagles nest and fire station is, or moving the facility out to the other end of Terminal E- apparently there’s a big area out there where they park a lot of maintenance equipment and also a big field that can be occupied. One thing he mentioned very adamantly; Massport has a big relationship with FedEx and there is a lot of pushback from them, as they are talking with them and Delta together. Massport pulls out the red carpet for FedEx and gives priority to their planes and flights; and they’re trying to thread the needle very carefully. He also said DL does not like to exceed 8-9 turns per day per gate and will not in most cases.

I don’t see an A330 working on BOS-BOG when JFK & ATL are only 76W’s. That’s way too much plane for BOS-BOG with AV on the route also. It would make way more sense to use that A330 to supplement LA BOS-GRU with a schedule of 4x weekly + LA 3x weekly to make the route daily.

For domestic additions it feels like there’s a good number of markets DL still doesn’t serve from BOS that have strong demand - IAH, PDX, SAT, OMA, HNL, OKC, STT should all be markets DL could add even if seasonally.

So a couple of follow-up points here:

He conveyed that, now that the JV is done, LATAM is looking to ramp up operations at Bogota and turn it into a new connecting hub for US-South America. He also acknowledged that ATL and JFK are 767-300, but they will be switching to A330, and that is why they are studying BOS-BOG on A330… they would want aircraft continuity for purposes of aircraft maintenance and potential substitution reasons in the event of cancelled flights- it streamlines the operation. If LATAM/Delta turn Bogota into a new connecting hub, I can definitely see them starting a sub daily flight. Lastly, he mentioned very adamantly that the route planners have been looking at data metrics and looking at traffic flows from BOS and some of its biggest connecting markets to Bogota/Colombia and the numbers look to line up. If you layer connections in over that, maybe it makes sense.

On the European expansion- even though Barcelona is actively being discussed, there are additional markets they will want to add. He didn’t give any specifics around that.

On the domestic front- everyone talks a lot about PDX, but he confirmed there is no desire to add that market. Delta wants to flow as many connections on the pacific over SEA as possible, and the O&D numbers aren't stellar for a long, transcon flight like that. His reason for saying that domestic adds were “tapped out” was not due to a lack of gate space, but instead due to the laser focus on core hubs currently. There isn’t really many more domestic markets that is ultra low hanging fruit. He did mention IAH, but also acknowledged UA has a tight grip on that. I could see them doing an IAH add though.

Lastly, I’m curious about them possibly taking part of Terminal B though- this is the first time I’ve heard this idea.

I could easily see Delta taking some or all of the 3 Air Canada gates after the A-B connector is done. Especially if the NK gates are free with the B6 tie up. It would put Air Canada closer to United. Though I was always hoping that United gets the common gates B20/21 back from American on a swap. I dislike the long walk from the lounge to B30/31 where you need to go past where TSA dumps out.

airbazar wrote:

FGITD wrote:

It’s true though, there is a ton of space out by the wood island area. Most of it is used for massport storage or ground handler equipment which still has to go somewhere. But I really believe that’s where the next big construction projects will be. Relocating the eco lot, state police, etc.

There are strict maximum height requirements guiding any sort of construction that close to a runway, that's probably why that lot is used for equipment storage. I remember reading that even the cranes at the container port need to be moved when aircraft take off in that direction.

TheChickenman wrote:

Regarding the first point, the expansion is adding a new security checkpoint that empties out right at the new gates, so unless pax would be taking the long walk through all of the terminals to get from A-E, the new gates would actually be the closest gates.
Regarding the second, they are indeed taking up one (maybe two?) of the new lounge spaces in the expansion.

Today connecting passengers either walk or they take the airside bus which drops them off at the very end of Terminal C. Either way it will require extra walking.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they move the jitney stop. It will be a pain to go all the way around E, but those gates aren’t doing quick turns.

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.

Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?

Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

FGITD wrote:

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.

Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?

Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

And all this for a carrier that now says they have nowhere domestically to expand. Don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Delta in recent times, but you can’t ask for more space however that might come and then say. Yeah but I can’t really expand markets on that. I’ll just hang on to my 3 daily to HPN at 15% loads. First things first, move WS to B, not like there isn’t space to do that. Remember the days of a potential 55 departure operation by WN out of those nice new gates Massport built after their move out of A. New markets are possible. Profitably possible, different issue. But honestly… 21 gates and they can’t figure out some extra flights to maintain their number 1 (alleged) status… give me a break. Now had they said pilot shortage, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they used the Wrestling analogy. So no.

VS4ever wrote:

FGITD wrote:

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.

Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?

Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

And all this for a carrier that now says they have nowhere domestically to expand. Don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Delta in recent times, but you can’t ask for more space however that might come and then say. Yeah but I can’t really expand markets on that. I’ll just hang on to my 3 daily to HPN at 15% loads. First things first, move WS to B, not like there isn’t space to do that. Remember the days of a potential 55 departure operation by WN out of those nice new gates Massport built after their move out of A. New markets are possible. Profitably possible, different issue. But honestly… 21 gates and they can’t figure out some extra flights to maintain their number 1 (alleged) status… give me a break. Now had they said pilot shortage, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they used the Wrestling analogy. So no.

Despite everything this guy told me, I’m still taking it with a pinch of salt. How many times have we seen executives say things and it didn’t pan out. I think some of the things he said clearly have merit, such as the likely increase in frequency on BOS-GRU, he knew a lot about the airfield and where there is room for expansion, and DL is clearly more focused on core hubs right now, but I do not believe for one second that they are done expanding their domestic flights (they did announce MEM and SDF recently)- they are running around 140-150 flights per day, and if you apply 8-9 turns per gate, they can get up to around 180 flights per day at A, and probably squeeze in another 20 flights if they really wanted to. I’m also in a wait and see mode on the BOG build up for LATAM and turning it into a secondary base for US-South America. Not saying it won’t happen, but this was the first I heard about it so let’s see if that actually shakes out, and even if it does, will they have enough critical mass to add BOS-BOG is a whole other story.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

I’m also in a wait and see mode on the BOG build up for LATAM and turning it into a secondary base for US-South America. Not saying it won’t happen, but this was the first I heard about it so let’s see if that actually shakes out, and even if it does, will they have enough critical mass to add BOS-BOG is a whole other story.

I think they would do BOS-BOG with a narrow body since since LA is better off using widebodies for LAX/SFO or Europe and DL is better off using widebodies for Asia/Europe/Deep South America. Due to the distance of BOS-BOG - DL and LA would have some flexibility in timing this flight. They could make it a red-eye in either director. Just make sure it connects to a hub bank in BOG.

I think BOG should be the primary base and then the JV picks their spots in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru with the majority of flights being ATL and JFK from USA. BOS-BOG/GRU would be complementary since secondary Brazil markets are sizeable from BOS. BOG makes sense as a connecting hub for US/Canada-South America - Its the perfect location. The only drawback is you need widebody for US/Canada Western Cities depending on XLR range.

Magnum9 wrote:

B752OS wrote:

DL is building a 22k sqf SkyClub in the E expansion, so it's not surprising Massport is going to give them some benefits. I believe all of the former clubs in the lower levels are gone to make way for expanded customs facilities.

It's always fun to speculate, and something that's been done in the sub as far as expansions for terminal A. We'll all just have to be patient as any sort of moves are not going to materialize before 2029-2030.

Sounds like it’s going to be a nice SkyClub DL has planned for the new E expansion.

With the basement clubs closing does that mean BOS will lose AF & VS Clubhouse lounges as all ST partners (KE, AF, KL, VS, AZ) will use the new SkyClub?

Any word on whether any other new lounges will open in the new E extension? Turkish? Amex Centurion?

At the size they're going with, it should be one of the larger SkyClubs in the Delta network. When I saw the plans for the extension a couple of years back. I believe there was space for 3 airline clubs - DL is taking up two of them which leaves one left. Maybe AMEX will put a bid in as Boston is a major hole in their lounge network. I know they did put a bid in the new lounge in the B to C connector that Chase wound up winning. Other than that, I would imagine the other SklyTeam carriers will use the DL lounge in E.

VS4ever wrote:

FGITD wrote:

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.

Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?

Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

And all this for a carrier that now says they have nowhere domestically to expand. Don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Delta in recent times, but you can’t ask for more space however that might come and then say. Yeah but I can’t really expand markets on that. I’ll just hang on to my 3 daily to HPN at 15% loads. First things first, move WS to B, not like there isn’t space to do that. Remember the days of a potential 55 departure operation by WN out of those nice new gates Massport built after their move out of A. New markets are possible. Profitably possible, different issue. But honestly… 21 gates and they can’t figure out some extra flights to maintain their number 1 (alleged) status… give me a break. Now had they said pilot shortage, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they used the Wrestling analogy. So no.

I’m not sure it was “no markets to expand to” or “no more gate space for expansion”.

Hi all,

Boston International traffic thru September from the T-100 reports. I am only looking at 21 and 22 at the moment, to show the progression out of Covid.

link is here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
source data is the DOT published data through Sep 22

Summary of data:

First few tabs are summary of the entire performance across the entire network, then it works through a couple of stages.
Stage 1 is US airlines breakouts and Stage 2 is by Region, due to it’s size, I split Europe into North, South, Central & East and West

I try to remove any extraneous data like cargo, diverts or charters, and that's how I show the data.
Data Sets:
Current Month – Sep 22
Prior Month – Aug 22
Q2
YTD
2021
Combined 2021 and 2022
And Comparator of Sep 21 vs Sep 22.

You will see info on flights, seats, passengers, capacity %, miles, average stage lengths, air-time (only US airlines provide the data to support that), etc. I've used about every metric they have in the specific file.

So I hope you find this useful.

Key Data from the report:

Note: I have moved

Sep Month
4,089 flights recorded, 800,887 seats and 649.996 passengers (81.2%), Avg of 159 passengers per flight across the network, Avg Departures per day at 66
Aug comparatives: 4,480 flights recorded, 877,935 seats and 761,983 passengers (86.8%), Avg of 170 passengers per flight across the network, Avg Departures per day at 72
Seats were down 8.9% overall, Pax down 14.7% Month to Month
Sep YTD
31,440 flights, 6,200,122 seats and 4,783,887 passengers (77.2%), avg pax count 152, which is running 35 above the average for the whole 2021

Vs Sep 21
2,244 flights (1,845 lower than 2022), 427,141 (374K lower than 22), 257,349 (393K lower than 2022). (60.2%, so loads were 20.9% higher in 22 vs 21), Avg Departures per day 37 vs 66 in 2022

87.5% increase In seats converted to a 152.6% increase in passengers flying.

Route Info:
New Stuff:
B6 – BOS-LHR – 21 flights, 2,898 seats, 1,399 pax for a capacity factor of 48.3% (67 pax per flight on average)
2nd Month
B6 – BOS – LGW – 59 flights, 8,648 seats, 5,602 pax for a capacity factor of 64.8% (95 per flight)
HKG, 16 flights, 5,344 seats, 2,702 pax for a capacity factor of 50.6%

9 routes pulled in less than 70% (STT, UVF, SXM, PLS, HKG, NAS, LGW, DXB, POP)
DL #1 International with 115K pax vs #2 B6 with 81K
Next largest: EI – 42K, BA – 42K, LH – 39K

2 Carriers broke 90% - CM and S4, 13 more broke 80% for the month.
5 carriers failed to break 70% (UA, CX, DE, YX and EK)

BOS-LHR – 83,000 pax carried, Loads in order went, BA, DL, VS, AA, UA and B6, ranging from 79.5% down to 48.3%
Play outdid FI this month with 83% (151 per flight) vs 78.9% (164 per flight) although FI was double the the flights)
Condor tailed off at end of the season with 59.4% vs 80.5% for LH
DL is #1 continues to be #1 on AMS, FCO, LIS (93.7% in September!), and TLV
Usual disclaimers apply, Data is only as good as what was submitted to the feds and I make no judgement or comment about profitability of routes, as the data just isn’t there.

for now, Enjoy and any questions, please let me know.
Also, B6 vs DL comparatives for September Combined
B6 DL
Dom – flight 7,469 7,149
Int - flight 555 521
8,024 7,670
Dom - Pax 774,115 676,895
Int - Pax 81,249 115,015
Month 855,364 791,910

YTD
Flights 66,285 65,237
Pax 7,016,905 6,317,100

B6 now #1 on both flights and Pax, noting that DL does include it’s regionals.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

Despite everything this guy told me, I’m still taking it with a pinch of salt. How many times have we seen executives say things and it didn’t pan out. I think some of the things he said clearly have merit, such as the likely increase in frequency on BOS-GRU, he knew a lot about the airfield and where there is room for expansion, and DL is clearly more focused on core hubs right now, but I do not believe for one second that they are done expanding their domestic flights (they did announce MEM and SDF recently)- they are running around 140-150 flights per day, and if you apply 8-9 turns per gate, they can get up to around 180 flights per day at A, and probably squeeze in another 20 flights if they really wanted to. I’m also in a wait and see mode on the BOG build up for LATAM and turning it into a secondary base for US-South America. Not saying it won’t happen, but this was the first I heard about it so let’s see if that actually shakes out, and even if it does, will they have enough critical mass to add BOS-BOG is a whole other story.

Other thing to add is NEA has provided opportunities for AA and B6 to expand based on their relative strengths. If DL needs to be the choice of carrier here in BOS, they need the footprint and or possibly dissuade other airlines from having a gate space. DL sees an opportunity in international and domestic does not bode too much at this time OR rather they do not see the big $. Thank you for providing an update from your discussion.

FGITD wrote:

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.
Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?
Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

Massport has a history of catering to the whims of the newest, expanding airline. Massport is a self-funded organization so nothing wrong with helping out a customer that is looking to expand.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

His reason for saying that domestic adds were “tapped out” was not due to a lack of gate space, but instead due to the laser focus on core hubs currently.

I'd say both play a role in the decision. Have you used terminal A at rush hour lately? It's more than just a mathematical problem with gates. The place is an absolute zoo and a very unpleasant experience. Granted that terminal C isn't any better but to me B6 is the Greyhound/PeterPan of airlines so I accept that. I don't think that's the image that Delta is going for.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

Despite everything this guy told me, I’m still taking it with a pinch of salt. How many times have we seen executives say things and it didn’t pan out.

With regards to Delta at Boston, pretty much every "rumor" has become reality over the last decade so no reason not to believe him.

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

This is anecdotal data at best, but I don't know anyone from the BOS catchment area that would be willing to drive to JFK to take a flight. I live in Somerville and I'm barely willing to drive to NYC at all, strongly preferring to take Amtrak, fly or even take a bus. I would never dream of driving to JFK to take a TPAC or South American nonstop flight - there are far too many good connection opportunities ex-BOS. Furthermore, it's often cheaper to connect than take a non-stop flight anyway, and the kind of folks who MIGHT be willing to drive 4+ hours to take a flight are typically the most cost sensitive folks around.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this, though. I can see the argument for folks from Connecticut, Western MA, southern VT - areas where the distance from JFK vs BOS starts to become a bit more similar. But Bostonians? I'd be shocked

Maybe not those that live in Boston, or even within 128, but I am sure there are those out on the 495 belt and even further who will drive to JFK or EWR for a non-stop flight. I know of a few people who have done this and continue to do this. Neighbors are from India and want a non-stop flight for their 2-3 times a year trips back home. Family friend does a lot of business in South America, namely to Argentina and Chile, and will drive to JFK for the non-stop flights. These people live 45-60 minutes outside of Boston.

A few years back I was talking to a DL flight attendant, formerly NW, who was deadheading to BOS to visit her niece who went to school in Boston. Long story short, she commented that when she used to work the DTW-BOS-DTW turn in the 1990s and 2000s, they would refer to it as the Boston-Asia shuttle given the large number of people NW would connect to/from Boston to/from Asia via DTW. She said there would be days when they had a 757 running BOS-DTW with upwards of 100 people on it connecting to DTW-NRT/HKG/ICN, etc. Point being is that airlines saw that there was a large market for service in Boston and slowly came around to it. Are there people who may opt to drive to JFK for a non-stop, or additional options? Sure. But Boston has added a large amount of service in the last decade that have catered to those types of people and of course the already robust local markets. In some ways, we can thank JL for this push and the 787. JL announced NRT-BOS almost 12 years ago.

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops.

I have actually done that a few times to fly to Florida/Caribbean during Feb&April school vacation weeks, and I live further north, in the Merrimack Valley.
I have done it because NY school vacations don't coincide with New England school vacations so the fares from NYC airports are dirt cheap during our school vacation period.
The International fares from NYC airports aren't meaningfully cheaper than BOS at any time of the year. I know this because, as an European, married to an European, with lots of European friends and family, we have looked to fly out of NYC on multiple occasions and it's never EVER cheaper once you factor in the parking, the drive, and all the hassle involved.
It's one thing to drive to LGA in February to save $400 per person, but it's a whole other thing if I'm saving only $20 to fly to Europe. It's not worth it. So, from years of personal experience I'm going to say that what you are suggesting, is not happening.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

I had dinner tonight with the Director of Sales for Delta in Boston and he outlined a few things I found to be very interesting;

Delta made a significant investment in the Terminal E expansion and they will have first rights to the new gates, where all other international carriers will shift primarily to existing E gates
-Delta and Massport have been in active discussions about the future of Terminal A and they are looking to expand; 2 possibilities are being discussed- 1) Once the A-B post-security connector is done, taking over a portion of Terminal B; 2) moving FedEx and adding an expansion to Terminal A. He said what’s being discussed is taking out the FedEx facility and either moving them further down where the old Eagles nest and fire station is, or moving the facility out to the other end of Terminal E- apparently there’s a big area out there where they park a lot of maintenance equipment and also a big field that can be occupied. One thing he mentioned very adamantly; Massport has a big relationship with FedEx and there is a lot of pushback from them, as they are talking with them and Delta together. Massport pulls out the red carpet for FedEx and gives priority to their planes and flights; and they’re trying to thread the needle very carefully. He also said DL does not like to exceed 8-9 turns per day per gate and will not in most cases.

For quite a while now, I have been advocating for the current Fedex warehouse and ramp be taken for an expanded passenger terminal and gates. Fedex has ramp space that is simply too much in the center of things. And if you get rid of that nearly useless new runway, you can fit quite a decent sized facility there, hopefully with its own CBP capability.

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.googl ... 969h,0t,0r

I can see why DL would love to take over the entire southern end of the airport right to the Massport Crash and Rescue. But it's also possible that the complex will interest AA and UA as well.

ual777newpaint wrote:

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

This is anecdotal data at best, but I don't know anyone from the BOS catchment area that would be willing to drive to JFK to take a flight. I live in Somerville and I'm barely willing to drive to NYC at all, strongly preferring to take Amtrak, fly or even take a bus. I would never dream of driving to JFK to take a TPAC or South American nonstop flight - there are far too many good connection opportunities ex-BOS. Furthermore, it's often cheaper to connect than take a non-stop flight anyway, and the kind of folks who MIGHT be willing to drive 4+ hours to take a flight are typically the most cost sensitive folks around.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this, though. I can see the argument for folks from Connecticut, Western MA, southern VT - areas where the distance from JFK vs BOS starts to become a bit more similar. But Bostonians? I'd be shocked

Shoutout Somerville. Great restaurant and bar scene; I lived just over the border in Charlestown for a long time. I need to go back to Dali soon.

There are absolutely people who will drive to JFK / EWR etc.... The question, in my mind, is whether it's a statistically significant portion of the traffic.

My opinion is that it is not, but that is not even an educated guess. I'm opining on that based on the growth metrics over the past decade and a few other things, including the competition between B6 and DL, not to mention the focus from AA and UA on expanding offerings beyond core hubs, such as the UA LHR flight.

RobertS975 wrote:

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4042.36031703,-71.02242996,1.9775852a,1845.46758335d,35y,355.05605969h,0t,0r

I can see why DL would love to take over the entire southern end of the airport right to the Massport Crash and Rescue. But it's also possible that the complex will interest AA and UA as well.

That's a lot of displacement the would need to find new homes. If DL was able to take over the whole stretch, it would probably more than double the gates in the satellite terminal.

For the other option (DL uses a few of the B gates), I wonder if there is an option to reconfigure the space between A and B and build to squeeze in a couple more gates. It's a much smaller area than the C to E (RIP Terminal D) connector.

tlecam wrote:

That's a lot of displacement the would need to find new homes. If DL was able to take over the whole stretch, it would probably more than double the gates in the satellite terminal.

I know I’ve repeated it relentlessly, but it’s not just a few little tenants that would be impacted. It’s literally every carrier that takes cargo except UPS and DHL. That means pretty much everyone except JetBlue. You think AA or UA is going to be willing and happy to lose their cargo facility in order to let a competitor expand? And airlines like EK or BA aren’t going to truck in their cargo from outside warehouses, it’s just not feasible

I get the premise, but you just can’t expand a major international airport by getting rid of its cargo facilities.

tlecam wrote:

RobertS975 wrote:

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4042.36031703,-71.02242996,1.9775852a,1845.46758335d,35y,355.05605969h,0t,0r

I can see why DL would love to take over the entire southern end of the airport right to the Massport Crash and Rescue. But it's also possible that the complex will interest AA and UA as well.

That's a lot of displacement the would need to find new homes. If DL was able to take over the whole stretch, it would probably more than double the gates in the satellite terminal.

For the other option (DL uses a few of the B gates), I wonder if there is an option to reconfigure the space between A and B and build to squeeze in a couple more gates. It's a much smaller area than the C to E (RIP Terminal D) connector.

The FedEx facility and ramp is too centrally located for a cargo facility. Maybe at one time it was deemed to be a perimeter location, but when terminal A was rebuilt circa 2004, that changed. The cost and time to rebuild the FedEx facility elsewhere on the airport property would not be oppressive. Where to put it may be an issue. I am all in favor of filling in marsh north of the approach end of Runway 15R, but I realize that filling in marsh rubs many the wrong way.

airbazar wrote:

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops.

I have actually done that a few times to fly to Florida/Caribbean during Feb&April school vacation weeks, and I live further north, in the Merrimack Valley.
I have done it because NY school vacations don't coincide with New England school vacations so the fares from NYC airports are dirt cheap during our school vacation period.
The International fares from NYC airports aren't meaningfully cheaper than BOS at any time of the year. I know this because, as an European, married to an European, with lots of European friends and family, we have looked to fly out of NYC on multiple occasions and it's never EVER cheaper once you factor in the parking, the drive, and all the hassle involved.
It's one thing to drive to LGA in February to save $400 per person, but it's a whole other thing if I'm saving only $20 to fly to Europe. It's not worth it. So, from years of personal experience I'm going to say that what you are suggesting, is not happening.

I gotta disagree with ya there. I live 10 mins from BOS and choose EWR or JFK for Europe and Asia regularly and know plenty of others who do the same. We can take all of our 2 cents with a grain of salt since we’re going off of personal experience / perception but I see a few other posts in this thread suggesting it’s not as uncommon as you’d think.

In my experience the fare difference tends to be closer to $300-$500. For a big trip like that many are traveling with a significant other or a small group. That price difference quickly becomes huge after multiple tickets are purchased.

I’ll typically rent a car in my neighborhood and drop it off at JFK or EWR or if I have the time I take the bus into the city and kick my trip off with a day or two in NYC. Yes it’s a hassle but i continue to find that the price difference makes up for it.

FGITD wrote:

I know I’ve repeated it relentlessly, but it’s not just a few little tenants that would be impacted. It’s literally every carrier that takes cargo except UPS and DHL. That means pretty much everyone except JetBlue. You think AA or UA is going to be willing and happy to lose their cargo facility in order to let a competitor expand? And airlines like EK or BA aren’t going to truck in their cargo from outside warehouses, it’s just not feasible

I get the premise, but you just can’t expand a major international airport by getting rid of its cargo facilities.

I don't think the point is to get rid of the cargo facilities; but rather, to move them to a less-heavily-used corner of the airport; i.e. over by Rt 1A. Take down the Economy Garage/MSP and move them over to the location of the surface lots by the Shell station. Or build those where the current ride share waiting lot is. Putting cargo operations over there is probably better for just about everyone but AA/DL. The one big minus is that access to the Ted Williams Tunnel/Mass Pike is a lot worse since the bridge over Neptune Rd is too low for trucks to turn left on 1A and the left exit to the Williams Tunnel is under 1000 ft past the Neptune Rd onramp anyway so we don't really want trucks making that weave.

RobertS975 wrote:

I am all in favor of filling in marsh north of the approach end of Runway 15R, but I realize that filling in marsh rubs many the wrong way.

Filling in any more marsh/harbor to expand Logan will never happen.

tlecam wrote:

There are absolutely people who will drive to JFK / EWR etc.... The question, in my mind, is whether it's a statistically significant portion of the traffic.

I've done it -- train to EWR, too -- but the cost difference has to be several hundred dollars. Parking at NYC airports is crazy expensive (although not that different from Logan) and the drive introduces a lot of time uncertainty on departure (i.e. traffic, flat tires, etc.).

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

I don't think it's about JFK/EWR O&D at all. Rather it's a result of several factors. For transpacific or South America flights, BOS really has to rely almost entirely on O&D from the region, since it's in a terrible location to connect passengers from just about anywhere else in the U.S. save maybe Maine. Unless an Asia-Pacific/Latin American carrier feels there's enough demand to reliably fill the planes (either to their hub or with a connection over their hub) it's tough to make the economics work. And yes, there is a need to factor in how much traffic they'd lose through other U.S. gateways; not just JFK/EWR due to people driving, but also people flying to places like MIA or LAX or ORD or SFO as a code share/interline/self-connect.

RAM I think returns as traffic levels recover; they should be able to get a reasonable amount of feed from AA (and maybe B6) over BOS.

ScottB wrote:

I don't think the point is to get rid of the cargo facilities; but rather, to move them to a less-heavily-used corner of the airport; i.e. over by Rt 1A. Take down the Economy Garage/MSP and move them over to the location of the surface lots by the Shell station. Or build those where the current ride share waiting lot is. Putting cargo operations over there is probably better for just about everyone but AA/DL. The one big minus is that access to the Ted Williams Tunnel/Mass Pike is a lot worse since the bridge over Neptune Rd is too low for trucks to turn left on 1A and the left exit to the Williams Tunnel is under 1000 ft past the Neptune Rd onramp anyway so we don't really want trucks making that weave.

I agree with moving the eco lot and MSP but the problem arises again…that area by the shell station is a construction staging/limo and bus parking area. So now those have to go somewhere.

The existing space for cargo is actually not sufficient either, both land or airside. Huge backups along harborside drive, no parking, congested ramps, etc. And that’s with easy tunnel access. It takes up a lot more space than many realize. Moving it to the wood island area is an option, but again…now we need a new home for Massport’s equipment.

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

In my VFR (Vietnam) experience and among the community, JFK/EWR is only considered if there's no options left at BOS, and even then, people won't make the drive but take a connecting flight instead. People seem hesitant to drive for hours before taking a long flight (and then another one after too), and the only time my family did drive was for a repatriation flight. By head count it's not a significant number that O&D there, but people do use it as an connecting airport like ORD or ATL. Just some anecdotal points

I have driven from Worcester to JFK a couple of times, before EK/QR were available from BOS. Part of the draw was a one stop flight to TRV vs at least 2 stops from BOS.

The premise that airlines don't want to start routes from Boston because people are driving to NY just doesn't seem valid given the explosion of new international airlines and routes in the last decade. If you told me that was happening 15 years ago, yes I believe that. But today I think that the number of people driving to NY are statistically insignificant.

Kno wrote:

In my experience the fare difference tends to be closer to $300-$500. For a big trip like that many are traveling with a significant other or a small group. That price difference quickly becomes huge after multiple tickets are purchased.

I'm not buying that. I'll have to see proof. I have been living in this country for 30 years and I have never seen fares to Europe $300-$500 cheaper from NYC. It's usually $100 tops, which when you factor in the travel expenses, it's just not worth it. Some times you can find even cheap fares on a LCC like Air Europa, French Bee, or Neos but I'm not touching those with a 10ft pole
Also the people on this group are not a valid sample because we know the airline industry better than the average traveler. Like I said, I've done it myself too. I suspect a lot of us on this forum have done it.

ScottB wrote:

I've done it -- train to EWR, too -- but the cost difference has to be several hundred dollars. Parking at NYC airports is crazy expensive (although not that different from Logan) and the drive introduces a lot of time uncertainty on departure (i.e. traffic, flat tires, etc.).

Last time I did it my return flight was delayed. I arrived in JFK at 4pm on a Friday. Had to deal with NYC rush hour traffic. Took me 6 1/2 hours to get home

ScottB wrote:

I don't think it's about JFK/EWR O&D at all. Rather it's a result of several factors. For transpacific or South America flights, BOS really has to rely almost entirely on O&D from the region, since it's in a terrible location to connect passengers from just about anywhere else in the U.S. save maybe Maine.

Very true for S.America but for TPAC it's not a huge detour. Most flights to/from Asia from the East Coast use polar routes anyway, or they did when they could overfly Russia. BOS is not as good as ORD/DTW but it's not any worse a hub than JFK/EWR/IAD to serve the rest of the East Coast.
Even compared to ORD, it could be only a ~300nm difference:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=rdu-ord-nr ... =wls&DU=nm

ual777newpaint wrote:

Sdmccray1984 wrote:

Here’s my honest feeling towards what several on this board have mentioned pertaining to a perceived need for more TPAC out of Logan: JFK & EWR are enormous international monsters within a 4-hour drive. Let’s face it: a VERY large number of New Englanders are willing to make that drive to get the TPAC & South American nonstops. When an airline like EVA Air looks at the addresses of their passengers on the daily JFK-TPE, they undoubtedly note the Bostonians, Vermonters, etc who O&D out of JFK. When they see this, what incentive do they then have to add that out of BOS? I’d love to see a return of Royal Air Maroc, but AT knows where it’s JFK passengers live & will thus consolidate resources (until BOS-CMN passengers route themselves in such a way that AT feels it has strong incentive to return to BOS). Am I wrong?

This is anecdotal data at best, but I don't know anyone from the BOS catchment area that would be willing to drive to JFK to take a flight. I live in Somerville and I'm barely willing to drive to NYC at all, strongly preferring to take Amtrak, fly or even take a bus. I would never dream of driving to JFK to take a TPAC or South American nonstop flight - there are far too many good connection opportunities ex-BOS. Furthermore, it's often cheaper to connect than take a non-stop flight anyway, and the kind of folks who MIGHT be willing to drive 4+ hours to take a flight are typically the most cost sensitive folks around.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this, though. I can see the argument for folks from Connecticut, Western MA, southern VT - areas where the distance from JFK vs BOS starts to become a bit more similar. But Bostonians? I'd be shocked

@ual777newpaint - You’re spot on. Using the OP’s example of BR’s JFK-TPE flights: Who in their right mind would drive 5+ hours to JFK (with traffic) to then catch a 16-hour flight to TPE and beyond? Those coming from Vermont, NH,
& ME would have to drive even longer. No way any significant amount people are doing that. I couldn’t imagine flying back 15-16 hours and then getting in my car and driving another 5+ hours.

The other point to add is that people will pay a premium to fly non-stop from their closest airport vs driving or even taking a connection. So if BR has significant data showing that a large percentage of their passengers are coming from BOS they’d be fools to not start a BOS-TPE flight especially now when they have the perfect plane to do so (787’s) 3-4x a week.

I think the reason we’re not seeing any new TPAC announcements is because of DL’s massive international expansion which has practically spoken for most of all the new gates and the current gates are spoken for by the international carriers already serving BOS. Once the international extension opens it looks like it will severely limit bus gate options as well. So until Massport breaks ground on phase 2 of the Terminal E expansion I’m not sure we’ll see many new international additions *unless* they want to arrive after 11pm and depart between 12am-12pm. Again, using the BR example - ORD, JFK, YYZ & IAH all arrive around 9-10pm and depart around 12am to connect to BR’s early morning bank of flights at TPE. Correct me if I'm wrong but 9-10pm is still a full house at Terminal E the majority of the year, no?

It’s not all bad for TPAC out of BOS. KE upgauges to the 77W and goes daily to ICN here soon, CX has announced an increased schedule on BOS-HKG and HU announced their intentions to return to BOS in 2023 (when is anyone’s guess). Then there’s also JAL daily to NRT.

I still think that by summer 2024 BOS get its first *A TPAC flight as this is a major hole for them and I could see it being either BR to TPE on a 787 or CA to PEK on a 787 or A350. Wildcard would be SQ to SIN on an A359 (one can dream right ).

Lastly, I believe there was a post either in the BOS forum or another thread with a source directly from AT stating their intention to return to BOS.

BOS Feb-2023 numbers are OUT. For all the points mentioned, I have traveled quite a LOT - personal and work. I have rarely encountered JFK/EWR being too cheap and being able to have the headache of trekking/driving for over 5 hours. again, as someone said, not to bring in personal experience and I can also say it's personal choice. If the choice were to have everyone trek to JFK/EWR and there is no doubt, they have numerable international options - the explosion of international carriers and now DL specifically states BOS has good options.

Feb-23 Feb-22 % change
Domestic Charter 999 539 85.3%
Domestic Commuter 194,878 165,456 17.8%
Domestic Jet 1,890,083 1,477,631 27.9%
Total Domestic 2,085,960 1,643,626 26.9%
Bermuda/Bahamas/Caribbean 140,078 102,274 37.0%
Canada 33,478 11,728 185.5%
Central America 25,362 24,292 4.4%
Europe 178,335 77,949 128.8%
Middle East 40,848 24,630 65.8%
South America 4,977 - #DIV/0!
Trans-Pacific 15,541 2,944 427.9%
Australia - -
North Africa - - #DIV/0!
Other International - -
Total International 438,619 243,817 79.9%
General Aviation 6,766 6,210 9.0%
Total airport passengers 2,531,345 1,893,653 33.7%

Month Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax Year Total Pax International pax
Jan 2017 2,603,998 494,741 2018 2,576,261 468,439 2019 2,710,036 521,356 2020 2,940,985 579,541 2021 740,247 106,827 2022 1,720,697 262,119 2,023 2,618,402 495,055
Feb 2017 2,369,960 411,816 2018 2,605,207 422,707 2019 2,716,724 460,049 2020 2,890,513 487,442 2021 731,029 76,748 2022 1,893,653 243,817 2,023 2,531,345 438,619
Mar 2017 3,076,023 540,036 2018 3,197,326 578,154 2019 3,457,362 631,858 2020 1,634,101 274,615 2021 1,070,171 115,832 2022 2,830,353 399,323 2,023
Apr 2017 3,271,833 620,923 2018 3,508,607 613,000 2019 3,647,276 707,159 2020 95,352 5,843 2021 1,427,287 142,054 2022 3,092,088 498,315 2,023
May 2017 3,466,805 659,326 2018 3,705,129 672,304 2019 3,879,343 775,024 2020 203,328 6,216 2021 1,744,185 144,375 2022 3,337,936 560,448 2,023
Jun 2017 3,552,952 710,313 2018 3,843,131 742,437 2019 3,946,406 847,877 2020 438,266 18,647 2021 2,121,185 206,547 2022 3,411,349 676,880 2,023
Jul 2017 3,683,573 764,325 2018 3,999,933 798,900 2019 4,072,082 891,642 2020 738,135 72,351 2021 2,570,680 304,010 2022 3,554,097 755,204 2,023
Aug 2017 3,757,903 772,812 2018 4,044,126 821,417 2019 4,120,937 898,759 2020 701,627 73,699 2021 2,587,063 350,377 2022 3,530,930 760,913 2,023
Sep 2017 3,178,011 640,539 2018 3,393,644 697,082 2019 3,547,546 724,791 2020 633,357 65,793 2021 2,226,035 260,481 2022 3,276,799 652,471 2,023
Oct 2017 3,431,263 581,481 2018 3,677,923 651,839 2019 3,771,212 686,063 2020 781,755 69,357 2021 2,579,783 244,004 2022 3,489,728 604,372 2,023
Nov 2017 3,089,200 483,354 2018 3,296,694 539,610 2019 3,264,105 552,066 2020 755,877 72,352 2021 2,471,462 269,238 2022 3,060,571 483,668 2,023
Dec 2017 2,930,898 483,354 2018 3,093,944 577,998 2019 3,389,382 621,349 2020 801,430 112,436 2021 2,409,372 329,483 2022 2,892,615 552,470 2,023
38,412,419 7,163,020 40,941,925 7,583,887 42,522,411 8,317,993 12,618,128 1,838,292 22,678,499 2,549,976 36,090,816 6,450,000 5,149,747 933,674

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

FGITD wrote:

So far we’ve given Delta all of A, every cargo facility but UPS, the entire E expansion, and now we’re moving into terminal B. Might as well give them a few gates at C to round things off.

Gotta wonder…do people actually like Logan or aviation, or is it just Delta?

Great airline, no doubt. But looking at the history of airports that lean too heavily on one carrier doesn’t show a particularly fun track record.

And all this for a carrier that now says they have nowhere domestically to expand. Don’t get me wrong I’m a fan of Delta in recent times, but you can’t ask for more space however that might come and then say. Yeah but I can’t really expand markets on that. I’ll just hang on to my 3 daily to HPN at 15% loads. First things first, move WS to B, not like there isn’t space to do that. Remember the days of a potential 55 departure operation by WN out of those nice new gates Massport built after their move out of A. New markets are possible. Profitably possible, different issue. But honestly… 21 gates and they can’t figure out some extra flights to maintain their number 1 (alleged) status… give me a break. Now had they said pilot shortage, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they used the Wrestling analogy. So no.

Despite everything this guy told me, I’m still taking it with a pinch of salt. How many times have we seen executives say things and it didn’t pan out. I think some of the things he said clearly have merit, such as the likely increase in frequency on BOS-GRU, he knew a lot about the airfield and where there is room for expansion, and DL is clearly more focused on core hubs right now, but I do not believe for one second that they are done expanding their domestic flights (they did announce MEM and SDF recently)- they are running around 140-150 flights per day, and if you apply 8-9 turns per gate, they can get up to around 180 flights per day at A, and probably squeeze in another 20 flights if they really wanted to. I’m also in a wait and see mode on the BOG build up for LATAM and turning it into a secondary base for US-South America. Not saying it won’t happen, but this was the first I heard about it so let’s see if that actually shakes out, and even if it does, will they have enough critical mass to add BOS-BOG is a whole other story.

I think ~180 daily DL departures is realistic. Especially during winter ops. Even WN, which turns planes faster than DL (due to open seating, FAs cleaning planes between flights, etc.) seems to struggle with scheduling more than 8 or 9 flights per day/per gate in their more busy stations.

I still think that by summer 2024 BOS get its first *A TPAC flight as this is a major hole for them and I could see it being either BR to TPE on a 787…

***************************

Down here in Charleston there are two really nice EVA 787s flying around my neighborhood. One is a -10 Star Alliance and the other -9 in its standard livery.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Rn4ja9V5txpvj2EU9

Magnum9 wrote:

@ual777newpaint - You’re spot on. Using the OP’s example of BR’s JFK-TPE flights: Who in their right mind would drive 5+ hours to JFK (with traffic) to then catch a 16-hour flight to TPE and beyond?

Me, me, me, but I'm not in my right mind
Seriously, in 2020 I had planned a trip to Bali but I wanted to fly SQ in premium economy out of JFK. The plan was to spend the night in a hotel at JFK the night before departure and after arrival. But then the Pandemic hit and everything was cancelled.

I think the reason we don't have more TPAC flights is simply because there isn't demand for more.
SkyTeam and OneWorld have it well covered and *A for some reason chooses to funnel all their traffic via ORD, EWR, and SFO.

airbazar wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

@ual777newpaint - You’re spot on. Using the OP’s example of BR’s JFK-TPE flights: Who in their right mind would drive 5+ hours to JFK (with traffic) to then catch a 16-hour flight to TPE and beyond?

Me, me, me, but I'm not in my right mind
Seriously, in 2020 I had planned a trip to Bali but I wanted to fly SQ in premium economy out of JFK. The plan was to spend the night in a hotel at JFK the night before departure and after arrival. But then the Pandemic hit and everything was cancelled.

I think the reason we don't have more TPAC flights is simply because there isn't demand for more.
SkyTeam and OneWorld have it well covered and *A for some reason chooses to funnel all their traffic via ORD, EWR, and SFO.

I’d go with the demand side too. CX were packing them in pre-covid I remember, JL were doing fine but they have relatively low density. Hainan were the wild card and generally struggled, maybe a China Airlines or equivalent would do well on Shanghai and Bejing.

HKG based on September numbers is not doing great and ICN is doing alright.
While September isn’t a good barometer of things necessarily it’s not like the market has recovered yet. Doesn’t seem people are knocking the doors down for it. BOS is much better suited to go East via Europe rather than East via the international date line and I think you will continue to see things focused in that direction. Never say never, back in 2012 had you said we would see the network we had precovid and even now, it would have raised some eyebrows, so I count ourselves lucky to have what we have. But always want more.

FGITD wrote:

I agree with moving the eco lot and MSP but the problem arises again…that area by the shell station is a construction staging/limo and bus parking area. So now those have to go somewhere.

Parking/waiting areas for buses, limos, taxis, ride shares, etc. can all go on the ground level of a new parking garage. There's zero sense in tying up valuable real estate with surface lots if there's a need to move facilities adjacent to the airfield (like the economy garage/staties) to somewhere not adjacent to the airfield. Construction staging can happen in part of what looks like the vast junkyard by Wood Island (yes, I know, it's equipment storage). There's also a ramp area northeast of the fuel farm which might be suitable for cargo if it doesn't impinge on the RPZ for 15R-33L.

Anecdotal, but in my world, TPAC demand is still down substantially - particularly to Eastern Asia. I recently was in Tokyo for work and it was pretty clear that they are in a much earlier stage of re-opening post COVID than North America and Europe. In my firm, they were just starting to have some people return to office. Business travel originating there is still very low.

It sounded like Hong Kong and Seoul were similar and China is a whole different animal.

ScottB wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I agree with moving the eco lot and MSP but the problem arises again…that area by the shell station is a construction staging/limo and bus parking area. So now those have to go somewhere.

Parking/waiting areas for buses, limos, taxis, ride shares, etc. can all go on the ground level of a new parking garage. There's zero sense in tying up valuable real estate with surface lots if there's a need to move facilities adjacent to the airfield (like the economy garage/staties) to somewhere not adjacent to the airfield. Construction staging can happen in part of what looks like the vast junkyard by Wood Island (yes, I know, it's equipment storage). There's also a ramp area northeast of the fuel farm which might be suitable for cargo if it doesn't impinge on the RPZ for 15R-33L.

Using the first level is a good solution. Have to agree with you on that idea.

You’re more on the money calling GSE storage a junkyard than you’d think. All the stuff works, but it’s in rough shape. And it’s pretty much the storage for the entire airport. If you know the handlers, you can tell whose stuff is who’s by the satellite imagery. But it’s all there

Taxiway Bravo extends down towards the fuel farms, and unfortunately would have to be widened. And that’s not possible due to the 15R runway safety area requirements. That ramp area is also surprisingly small in person. I think there’s also some limit on how close aircraft can park to the fuel tanks, so that limits it even further

FGITD wrote:

ScottB wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I agree with moving the eco lot and MSP but the problem arises again…that area by the shell station is a construction staging/limo and bus parking area. So now those have to go somewhere.

Parking/waiting areas for buses, limos, taxis, ride shares, etc. can all go on the ground level of a new parking garage. There's zero sense in tying up valuable real estate with surface lots if there's a need to move facilities adjacent to the airfield (like the economy garage/staties) to somewhere not adjacent to the airfield. Construction staging can happen in part of what looks like the vast junkyard by Wood Island (yes, I know, it's equipment storage). There's also a ramp area northeast of the fuel farm which might be suitable for cargo if it doesn't impinge on the RPZ for 15R-33L.

Using the first level is a good solution. Have to agree with you on that idea.

You’re more on the money calling GSE storage a junkyard than you’d think. All the stuff works, but it’s in rough shape. And it’s pretty much the storage for the entire airport. If you know the handlers, you can tell whose stuff is who’s by the satellite imagery. But it’s all there

Taxiway Bravo extends down towards the fuel farms, and unfortunately would have to be widened. And that’s not possible due to the 15R runway safety area requirements. That ramp area is also surprisingly small in person. I think there’s also some limit on how close aircraft can park to the fuel tanks, so that limits it even further

There is no perfect solution for future development, but based on the inertia of things, it will happen at some point and Massport is going to have to make some difficult decisions how to further maximize the existing footprint of the airport, and use the space most efficiently. I think it’s completely out of the question that they increase the size of the footprint, so they will be forced to move things around. It seems like the maintenance storage area/big field out by E is probably the most likely spot that makes the most sense to move an operation to, specifically cargo. I agree with others that cargo ops on the south end of the airport are too centrally located, and will likely have to be moved at some point, and I think the question is where would make the most sense, even though it will be expensive and a pain- I don’t see any other solution. If DL continues to grow they will have no choice but to expand the terminal, and as a result move things around. I agree these aren’t great options, but they will be forced at some point to make a decision to this effect. The other thing that comes into question, which would be much further down the road, is doing a realignment of the airfield and terminals (just like LGA). If they redesigned the terminals they could make much more efficient use of the space and further maximize it, but this is most definitely 20-30+ years down the road I would imagine.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

. The other thing that comes into question, which would be much further down the road, is doing a realignment of the airfield and terminals (just like LGA). If they redesigned the terminals they could make much more efficient use of the space and further maximize it, but this is most definitely 20-30+ years down the road I would imagine.

I’d love to see what they could come up with in terms of a total redesign on the existing footprint. I wouldn’t be surprised in the not so distant future if at least parts of the airfield were redesigned. The FAA has been cracking down on taxiway layouts all over the place and Logan is, quite frankly, a taxiway mess

Flew JL BOS-NRT-CGK last Sunday. Can’t speak for the back of the plane but the J cabin went out full. So while demand may be down to Asia in general from BOS it’s great to see the demand that is there is premium and filling up the J cabin. Looking at ExpertFlyer for my return this coming Sunday (26th March) there’s only 2 J seats left for sale and Y is completely sold out with only 2 seats left for sale in PE, so JL is doing very well filling their flights to/from BOS at the moment.

Definitely think using September data is already telling the wrong story. Demand is picking up more and more each month, which is why we’re seeing KE upgauge to the 77W and increase to daily and CX increase frequency as well.

VS4ever wrote:

I’d go with the demand side too. CX were packing them in pre-covid I remember, JL were doing fine but they have relatively low density. Hainan were the wild card and generally struggled, maybe a China Airlines or equivalent would do well on Shanghai and Bejing.

Slight correction; China Airlines is based in Taiwan and flys to TPE internationally. Air China I believe is who you meant that would potentially start a BOS-Shanghai and/or Beijing with Beijing being their primary hub. I’ve confused the two as well.

I could definitely see Air China filling in the *A TPAC gap @ BOS as their 789’s are the right size aircraft 3-4x week….potentially their A359 as well.

Magnum9 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

I’d go with the demand side too. CX were packing them in pre-covid I remember, JL were doing fine but they have relatively low density. Hainan were the wild card and generally struggled, maybe a China Airlines or equivalent would do well on Shanghai and Bejing.

Slight correction; China Airlines is based in Taiwan and flys to TPE internationally. Air China I believe is who you meant that would potentially start a BOS-Shanghai and/or Beijing with Beijing being their primary hub. I’ve confused the two as well.

I could definitely see Air China filling in the *A TPAC gap @ BOS as their 789’s are the right size aircraft 3-4x week….potentially their A359 as well.

Yeah, I guess, sorry my 17 hour days are catching up with me.

I know JAL can’t just ‘decide’ to swap NRT for HND (governmental machinations being what they are), but would it make sense to add a HND flight as a companion to the NRT one?

chrisnh wrote:

I know JAL can’t just ‘decide’ to swap NRT for HND (governmental machinations being what they are), but would it make sense to add a HND flight as a companion to the NRT one?

Is there really the market for 2 flights? JL isn't exactly always packing them in month in month out to warrant it. I know there's the "if you build it, they will come" theory. But even outside of swap issues, I believe HND is limited by the # of frequencies allowed, so i am not sure even if they wanted to, they could because the slots are taken,

chrisnh wrote:

I know JAL can’t just ‘decide’ to swap NRT for HND (governmental machinations being what they are), but would it make sense to add a HND flight as a companion to the NRT one?

Actually, I think JAL could if they wanted to; the Japanese government split the allocations for HND-U.S.A. between JL and NH who are free to use them as they wish. They just have no need to use a scarce HND frequency for BOS when they currently offer the only non-stop BOS-TYO service. IMO, in terms of convenience, BOS-NRT + Narita Express still beats BOS-hub-HND.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230323-lh388

LH A380 is officially on the schedule. Starting 1st June. There will be a frequency drop to 5x weekly over some weeks in June and July.

ScottB wrote:

chrisnh wrote:

I know JAL can’t just ‘decide’ to swap NRT for HND (governmental machinations being what they are), but would it make sense to add a HND flight as a companion to the NRT one?

Actually, I think JAL could if they wanted to; the Japanese government split the allocations for HND-U.S.A. between JL and NH who are free to use them as they wish. They just have no need to use a scarce HND frequency for BOS when they currently offer the only non-stop BOS-TYO service. IMO, in terms of convenience, BOS-NRT + Narita Express still beats BOS-hub-HND.

Having done BOS-hub-HND last month, I think I’d opt for the Narita direct next time. I was on United and ANA through Chicago and it went flawlessly, but that stop over on the way back is brutal. I would consider something like HND-ICN-BOS or HND-HKG-BOS, but not a US hub - definitely not a US Hub without an arrivals lounge.

The Room on ANA is exceptional.

I know it was just discussed upthread- my sister and her family are looking to go to PBI for their April school vacation, and flights were $400-$500 each for 4 of them. They found tickets on B6 out of LGA and HPN for $150-$160 each direct and they are driving from Needham down to NY, I believe HPN, for the flight. They just told me today, and I found it to be so ironic this was just being discussed.

Not sure if the rest of you have noticed, but it seems of late flights have gotten to be so expensive. Now I realize this is happening nationally, but I have found it to be particularly relevant in BOS- I’m going to MYR in May and paid $630 round trip on DL- I even checked Spirit and after bags and everything they were $580 round trip. While airfares have been higher nationally, I have found that NYC airports have had much more reasonable fares than BOS- BOS has been consistently high.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

I know it was just discussed upthread- my sister and her family are looking to go to PBI for their April school vacation, and flights were $400-$500 each for 4 of them. They found tickets on B6 out of LGA and HPN for $150-$160 each direct and they are driving from Needham down to NY, I believe HPN, for the flight. They just told me today, and I found it to be so ironic this was just being discussed.

Not sure if the rest of you have noticed, but it seems of late flights have gotten to be so expensive. Now I realize this is happening nationally, but I have found it to be particularly relevant in BOS- I’m going to MYR in May and paid $630 round trip on DL- I even checked Spirit and after bags and everything they were $580 round trip. While airfares have been higher nationally, I have found that NYC airports have had much more reasonable fares than BOS- BOS has been consistently high.

Are you sure that this is not just playing off the demand spikes that align around the spring breaks in various places?