deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:13 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:

This would be highly unlikely. VS has much better name recognition on BOS-LHR than DL as they've been flying it since 1991 vs. DL who's only been on it for a few years. VS is so committed to BOS that they spent millions on building a VS Clubhouse @ BOS, one of only a handful of stations to have one. I don't think VS will be retreating from BOS.

Its not retreating, VS would still be in the market, but with DL operating the flight.

And the Clubhouse stuff was more than likely all planned out before DL took on the 49% stake. It would make sense for VS to leave and shut down the expensive club and allow DL, who has clubs and more mass to spread the costs out, to fly the route. On top of that, as said in this thread, the 787 is a lot of airplane for the route.
tlecam wrote:

But it is plane size and financials. The 789 is quite a bit larger than the 763 to begin with. It also is much more expensive, in part because its new and provides better fuel performance and in part because you're buying a plane that can fly much longer routes than the 763. It's a lot of plane for a BOS-LHR route, regardless of seating configuration.

and this is the reason DL is having a hard time going 787 for the 767 replacement. They are going to pay a big price for a jet that can fly 12-15 hour flights when what they needs is a jet that can fly 6-12 hour flights. The A330 would be a better replacement BUT the capacity is much larger than a 763. That is why most think DL will go 330 on the 767 routes that can take the capacity but also end up with 787s and even 338s for the 767 routes that can't handle the capacity.


Also, rumor mill has it DL is going to invest in Terminal A and the SkyClubs.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:25 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
And the Clubhouse stuff was more than likely all planned out before DL took on the 49% stake. It would make sense for VS to leave and shut down the expensive club and allow DL, who has clubs and more mass to spread the costs out, to fly the route. On top of that, as said in this thread, the 787 is a lot of airplane for the route.


VS is adding BOS-MAN in 2017, why does it make sense for VS to leave? What I don't think you're taking into consideration though is that VS/DL do very well on BOS-LHR in the J cabins. Of the two carriers DL offers the least premium experience. VS has chauffeur services and Clubhouses on both ends at BOS & LHR. VS also beats Delta with the J onboard experience as well. The DL 767 seats are AWFUL. There is also absolutely nothing premium about the SkyClub DL has in BOS - drinks you have to pay for if you want any decent wine, beer or liquor, no showers, no real food bar some chicken salad and olives and stale vegetables. The Clubhouse has much better food and great cocktails and wine for free.

BOS is a major market out of the UK, as well as NYC, DC, CHICAGO, LOS ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO and MIAMI. I just can't see VS withdrawing and giving BOS to BA as the only UK based carrier. They've been here since 1991.

deltal1011man wrote:
Also, rumor mill has it DL is going to invest in Terminal A and the SkyClubs.


Even if it's on par with the newer SkyClubs like JFK or SFO - it'd still be far behind the Clubhouses.
 
KSBOS
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:06 am

VS isnt going anywhere if they're adding new service to Manchester. It is to compete with Thomas Cook. I bet either one could possibly add more routes like Belfast or Glasgow. I could see Glasgow being done with Thomas Cook possibly. Speaking of new service is TAM or Avianca still going to add service. For the unserved BOS-SAT is there a possibility Frontier could return and serve the route or have WN possibly do it. Does anyone think Frontier could possibly make a return here?
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:21 am

deltal1011man wrote:


Also, rumor mill has it DL is going to invest in Terminal A and the SkyClubs.


Not sure about investments in "Terminal A" but DL is going to be refurbishing and remodeling the SkyClub out on the Satellite.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:22 am

Hi all,

Ok, updated the Massport numbers on the site and added a couple of extra bits. Let me know if it makes sense... I would say i'm about 90% done now

http://awhitelocks.wixsite.com/newenglandaero
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:45 pm

VS4 - love your site! I'm still working through it but the Terminal E analysis was pretty fascinating. The visual illustration of how tight the gates are tells the story.

I wonder if it makes sense to add a "remote stand parking lot" to the sheet, just so you get an idea as to who is hanging out somewhere else. Just a suggestion!
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:50 pm

I"m not sure that Terminal A needs much in the way of refurbishments. Updating the satellite sky club (which is one of my favorites) is welcome, as I don't think it's received a major upgrade since it opened.

However, the rest of A seems to be in good shape. Open, spacious, decent food options (Lucky's and Legals are surprisingly good).
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4135
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:22 pm

VS4ever wrote:
Hi all,

Ok, updated the Massport numbers on the site and added a couple of extra bits. Let me know if it makes sense... I would say i'm about 90% done now

http://awhitelocks.wixsite.com/newenglandaero



Very interesting!! I noticed a 36% increase in the number of flights on AA between Boston and LAX February 2015 v February 2016 (156-->212). Obviously the bad winter in '15 versus the 'good' winter in '16 played a role because the average number of seats was about the same. So I guess the conclusion isn't that 2016 had more flights; it's just that 2015 had fewer.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:16 pm

tlecam wrote:
VS4 - love your site! I'm still working through it but the Terminal E analysis was pretty fascinating. The visual illustration of how tight the gates are tells the story.

I have to give someone else the credit for that sheet creation, it wasn't me, I just took it and updated it, but you are right it's an awesome view of just how tight things are.

I wonder if it makes sense to add a "remote stand parking lot" to the sheet, just so you get an idea as to who is hanging out somewhere else. Just a suggestion!


I can certainly see if I can figure out something, as I am not in the day to day operations at BOS, it will be hard to tell exactly what happens, but clearly we know some will be remote standed... Leave it with me and see what I can come up with.

chrisnh wrote:
Very interesting!! I noticed a 36% increase in the number of flights on AA between Boston and LAX February 2015 v February 2016 (156-->212). Obviously the bad winter in '15 versus the 'good' winter in '16 played a role because the average number of seats was about the same. So I guess the conclusion isn't that 2016 had more flights; it's just that 2015 had fewer.


Agreed, because you only get a total number of and its impossible to see cancellations and stuff, I will need to work on new routes and expansions to see a true volume increase. But it's easy to see a gauge adjustment or increase because of having the average seats. (assuming they report correctly), that's why I focus on the percentages, if you assume the flights go up by 20% and the capacity of those flights is the same, you would think the number of pax would also increase by hopefully 20% to make it worthwhile. More than that, generally means you are doing better, less than that means that you aren't. I know it's not as simple as that, but I only have a limited amount of data to work with.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
ual777newpaint
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:39 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:03 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
N717TW wrote:
Not saying they were...I was saying we're more likely to see a downgrade to a 767 than see DL drop the route entirely. BTW, you're right, The VS lounge at BOS is very nice. I don't quite understand how the economics of lounges for one flight per day work, but its really nice.


My sense is that BOS commands enough premium J traffic that it warranted a Clubhouse to compete with BA. Come next year when VS starts BOS-MAN 3x weekly this will also enhance usage of the club as there will be some days with 2x flights on VS. I wish DL would honestly just turn the route over to VS and let them go 12-13x weekly and take over the route like VS is doing in SEA. I've flown both DL & VS to LHR and the VS hard and soft products are much better in my opinion.



Really? I flew a VS A340-600 from LHR-BOS two weeks ago and while I agree that their soft product is superior, I found the interior of the aircraft incredibly tired & dated (chrome gasper vents :o). Of course, Virgin's 787's are quite nice, but there's something to be said for Delta's consistency.
318 319 320 320N 321 333 343 346 359 717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 744 752 753 762 763 76E 764 77A 77E 773 789 CRJ CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 F50 F70 MD88 MD90 DL UA WN B6 TK US U2 KL EQ MU SK GK VY AF AM KE XL KN CZ VS 3U CM CA 7P SC
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:35 am

ual777newpaint wrote:
Really? I flew a VS A340-600 from LHR-BOS two weeks ago and while I agree that their soft product is superior, I found the interior of the aircraft incredibly tired & dated (chrome gasper vents :o). Of course, Virgin's 787's are quite nice, but there's something to be said for Delta's consistency.


I have to ask - what exactly about DL's long-haul service do you find consistent?

*They use 4 different style of seats depending on the international aircraft:

757 - has a unique J class seat
767s - unique J class seat
A330/747's - unique J class seat
777 - unique J class seat

*Only on flights to China and Australia will they give pjs vs. VS where I've received them on each flight, including short flights like BOS/JFK-LHR.

*Food quality on VS is much better and more consistent

Those are my observations at least of DL's inconsistencies. I think VS is much more consistent all around.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:15 pm

The article came in Barron and found it interesting to share in context to the Delta recent expansion:

Delta & JetBlue: Entering the Cage Match of Death? -- Barron's Blog

This week, Delta Air Lines ( DAL) announced plans to expand in Boston, perhaps doing to JetBlue Airways ( JBLU) what it did to Alaska Air ( ALK) in Seattle. Wolfe Research's Hunter Keay and Matt Morris consider the implications:

On Monday, Delta issued a lengthy press release detailing its desire to grow in Boston. The release didn't emphasize the growth itself but rather the quality of the product in the market. The opening sentence of the press release ended with Delta saying it was the only global carrier with first class seating on every flight to and from Boston. JetBlue's earnings call a few weeks ago heavily emphasized the success and future growth of Mint, which is JetBlue's apparently very successful lie-flat seating product. This Delta Boston press release seems to be a direct counterstrike, as it highlights its own premium product in JetBlue's second biggest market and perhaps most strategically important city, in our opinion.

First thing, to be clear, the scale of the incremental growth is modest. Delta said it would grow to 90 peak day departures by June 2017, which is up modestly from the 83 peak daily departures this summer. That pales in comparison to, say, the buildup in Seattle where Delta grew from 38 to 150 over a multi-year period, transforming Seattle from a focus city to an outright hub.

So why would such modest growth still warrant a big press release involving a picture of a route map? Because the press release and Boston expansion isn't really entirely about Boston, in our opinion -- it's about recent announcements by JetBlue designed to hit Delta squarely in what we think are Delta's two most important, long term earnings producers: Atlanta airport and the LaGuardia-Boston shuttle. Longer term JetBlue's comments about a transatlantic expansion probably factor in to some degree, too, but this is more imminent.

Just what we need: More battles between airlines.

Shares of Delta Air Lines have declined 0.9% to $36.73 at 2:39 p.m. today, while JetBlue Airways has dropped 2.1% to $16.30, and Alaska Air has fallen 1% to $67.05.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4135
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:18 pm

I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:49 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).


Right now? the 321s might make SNN (and the UK and Portugal with severe weight limits). Unless they buy into the 787/330, B6 will have to wait until 2019 and the 321LR to fly trans-atlantic.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:52 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).


Well DL only flies to 3, LHR, AMS and CDG and unless they have pre-clear they would need to be tugged from E to C, which is pretty normal for B6's Caribbean flights anyway. I think the big question is whether B6 would go after those markets. LHR will be tough to get slots and is well covered, AMS could be ripe for competition, CDG also has AF. So my feeling is they could try some different stuff. BHX,EDI,MAN,LGW,STN amongst others.

interesting battle brewing here in BOS between DL and B6 I must say.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:04 pm

VS4ever wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).


Well DL only flies to 3, LHR, AMS and CDG and unless they have pre-clear they would need to be tugged from E to C, which is pretty normal for B6's Caribbean flights anyway. I think the big question is whether B6 would go after those markets. LHR will be tough to get slots and is well covered, AMS could be ripe for competition, CDG also has AF. So my feeling is they could try some different stuff. BHX,EDI,MAN,LGW,STN amongst others.

interesting battle brewing here in BOS between DL and B6 I must say.

I believe DL is brewing for the next large B6 expansion at Logan where they are the dominant tenant and the 800 pound gorilla. ATL, CVG, MSP and as B6 plans the next large expansion in Boston/
 
styles9002
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:07 pm

VS4ever wrote:
chrisnh wrote:
I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).


Well DL only flies to 3, LHR, AMS and CDG and unless they have pre-clear they would need to be tugged from E to C, which is pretty normal for B6's Caribbean flights anyway. I think the big question is whether B6 would go after those markets. LHR will be tough to get slots and is well covered, AMS could be ripe for competition, CDG also has AF. So my feeling is they could try some different stuff. BHX,EDI,MAN,LGW,STN amongst others.

interesting battle brewing here in BOS between DL and B6 I must say.



Delta could launch BOS-DUB service and not have to tow any aircraft from E to A as US CBP pre-clearance ex DUB would permit a domestic arrival. EI is printing money on BOS-DUB at the moment and I am suspect DL would do quite well with a B757 service from Logan.

With all the code-shares B6 offers, they likely have excellent data for what traffic they deliver to the international carriers ex BOS and JFK and will likely launch routes to Europe that are supported by those data, if they do eventually launch flights.
It is what it is.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:48 pm

chrisnh wrote:
I don't know how many European cities that DL now serves can be reached by JetBlue's new A321's. LHR? AMS? Of course the elephant in the living room is whether those planes would have to be tugged from E to C after they land. I remember decades ago when DL wanted customs & immigration at A and Massport said 'Nyet' (pun intended).


On the second part of your question about tugging--it probably less of an issue given how C and E will soon be fully connected. If Massport and B6 do a good job of flowing the two buildings together, maybe even adding moving walkways away from the gates (in what was old D), you could just flow traffic through without having to tug, especially if B6 uses the old NWA gates (E1-E4). A mint configured 321 could arrive from Int'l and then leave for LA/SFO, etc. from the same gate 75 minutes later. Be a bit of a hike from the Terminal C check-in but its not much worse, frankly, than WN check-in to A22 or DL's silver medallion check-in to A13. Int'l departures don't need special dedicated gates, so they could leave from any gate in Terminal C.

DL (and AA) will continue to have to tug but DL's BOS operation isn't based on connections (any conx is extra and organic), so the lack of FIS/ICE facilities in terminal A is less of an issue for their BOS business. While it would be easier for them to not have to tug in theory, I'm not sure that Terminal A has enough ramp space for DL to park multiple 767s and A330s (never mind the VS, AF and AZ jets that would probably need to park there to make the FIS investment worthwhile) for 5 to 6 hours. Which means they would end up having to tug the jet anyways.
 
FGITD
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:03 pm

The connector is already complete, no moving walkways. Very nicely done though.

No way massport would give JetBlue that many gates, nor that much on gate time at terminal E. They already have their own entire terminal, why make the international carriers suffer longer holds for them? As it stands, E is already a minimum turn time or tow terminal.

Interesting point about DL to DUB though. Definitely money to be made on that route, and given the preclearance, it doesn't seem like it would add too much hassle to delta
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:33 pm

FGITD wrote:
The connector is already complete, no moving walkways. Very nicely done though.

No way massport would give JetBlue that many gates, nor that much on gate time at terminal E. They already have their own entire terminal, why make the international carriers suffer longer holds for them? As it stands, E is already a minimum turn time or tow terminal.

Yeah, even when E7B, E8A and E8B come back on line (E11-E13 as will be i think) Terminal E is already pretty maxed out with gate availability. E1A-E1B have Porter (6 flights a day), SAS, CM and AM with the smaller aircraft covering them, so it's almost impossible to give B6 huge amount of space more than they have and the timings they would need would be similar to those already, so no real space available until 2021-2022 when hopefully the E Extension happens.

Interesting point about DL to DUB though. Definitely money to be made on that route, and given the preclearance, it doesn't seem like it would add too much hassle to delta


The more I think about it, I think more capacity to DUB has to come soon, particularly in the summer, loads are huge and I am surprised (although they don't have the capacity) that EI haven't put at least an additional seasonal flight on. if only FR could get their act together and link up with B6 or DL, there would be a ready made feed. (US side would make a ton of money as FR's policies on bags etc will be more restrictive, so less weight to fly up and across the Atlantic.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:40 pm

FGITD wrote:
The connector is already complete, no moving walkways. Very nicely done though.

No way massport would give JetBlue that many gates, nor that much on gate time at terminal E. They already have their own entire terminal, why make the international carriers suffer longer holds for them? As it stands, E is already a minimum turn time or tow terminal.

Interesting point about DL to DUB though. Definitely money to be made on that route, and given the preclearance, it doesn't seem like it would add too much hassle to delta


* Thanks, didn't know the connector was done.
* I was thinking down the road on Terminal E. There is no way B6 will launch TATL in the next 18-24 months, so by this time, the Terminal E expansion will be underway.
* DL to DUB is a great idea but it all depends on how many international configured 757s DL has available and if it can make more money than flying them TCON. would definitely be a great summer route, for sure.
 
FGITD
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:13 pm

It's been done for a little over a month I think. Though I haven't seen much in the way of pax roaming back and forth yet. Very bright, open space. Plus unlike most of Logan, it actually looks like it was built past 1975.

Even with the expansion, I don't think JetBlue would get those gates. The new section just doesn't add enough to allow it. Not to mention E2-4 can handle most widebodies already. Especially 3B and 4, which can take up to a 744. Just not worth giving up that capability to put a 321 on.

I think delta could manage a year round 757, with upgauge to a 767 in the summer to DUB. But as usual, depending on departure time, even that would complicate the gate situation at A.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:17 pm

FGITD wrote:
The connector is already complete, no moving walkways. Very nicely done though.

No way massport would give JetBlue that many gates, nor that much on gate time at terminal E. They already have their own entire terminal, why make the international carriers suffer longer holds for them? As it stands, E is already a minimum turn time or tow terminal.

Interesting point about DL to DUB though. Definitely money to be made on that route, and given the preclearance, it doesn't seem like it would add too much hassle to delta

Can you please provide any insights on how the connector works? Appreciate your insights as I have not had a chance to go to either Terminal C or E recently.

1. Does the connector go both ways - in other words from Terminal C to E without having to go through security or does it also go from Terminal E to C as well?
2. How long of a walk would it be?
3. Any idea if Massport will build a single connector between B to E and probably A to E as well?

Appreciate any insights. Thank you.
 
FGITD
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:30 pm

It does go both ways, essentially midway through you stop hearing terminal E announcements, and everything becomes a little bit more JetBlue. It connects to E right around gate E2A, with escalators connecting up/down to gate E3A. Can't recall exactly how it is on the C side. No further security screening past the initial /old terminal c and e tsa areas, however there is still the terminal E tsa line that formally served only E-1 and 2. I'd estimate it to be about a 5 to 10 minute walk, end to end.

I'd love to see full access between all terminals post security, but aside from making a grand tour of Logan (connect from a to b to c to e) I don't see how it would be possible. Especially given That with the new planned expansion of E (the planned, not under construction expansion) walking from terminal E to A is basically going to be like walking from Chelsea, through east Boston, to the waterfront. Long distance. Seperated by a lot of obstacles.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:14 pm

VS4ever wrote:
I think the big question is whether B6 would go after those markets. LHR will be tough to get slots and is well covered, AMS could be ripe for competition, CDG also has AF. So my feeling is they could try some different stuff. BHX,EDI,MAN,LGW,STN amongst others.

London is such a huge market there's always room for 1 more. With slot restrictions are LHR and DY at LGW, maybe B6 could try STN although I suspect that even LGW could handle 2 carriers from Boston.
I don't see AMS happening. DL flies there because it's a hub but I don't think the O&D market is significant. CDG is a large market and has no competition at all so if they can get their foot in the door that is exactly the market that I expect B6 will be entering.
N717TW wrote:
* I was thinking down the road on Terminal E. There is no way B6 will launch TATL in the next 18-24 months, so by this time, the Terminal E expansion will be underway.

I suspect you're right solely based on today's delivery schedule but these things change and I wouldn't put money on it :)

FGITD wrote:
It's been done for a little over a month I think. Though I haven't seen much in the way of pax roaming back and forth yet. Very bright, open space. Plus unlike most of Logan, it actually looks like it was built past 1975.

Come on you're exaggerating. Terminal A is decent and the new United terminal is great.

iyerhari wrote:
3. Any idea if Massport will build a single connector between B to E and probably A to E as well?

They already have it but you have to re-clear security between terminals and in the case of A to E, travel thru the central parking garage :)
Now seriously, the walk between A and E is probably the easiest between terminals at BOS thanks to the moving walkways.

While we're on this topic, I think Massport should convert some of terminal C gates to mixed use International/domestic gates by building a tunnel (similar to the one in terminal A), to gain access to the FIS facility in terminal E.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:42 pm

FGITD wrote:
It does go both ways, essentially midway through you stop hearing terminal E announcements, and everything becomes a little bit more JetBlue. It connects to E right around gate E2A, with escalators connecting up/down to gate E3A. Can't recall exactly how it is on the C side. No further security screening past the initial /old terminal c and e tsa areas, however there is still the terminal E tsa line that formally served only E-1 and 2. I'd estimate it to be about a 5 to 10 minute walk, end to end.

I'd love to see full access between all terminals post security, but aside from making a grand tour of Logan (connect from a to b to c to e) I don't see how it would be possible. Especially given That with the new planned expansion of E (the planned, not under construction expansion) walking from terminal E to A is basically going to be like walking from Chelsea, through east Boston, to the waterfront. Long distance. Seperated by a lot of obstacles.



Not perfect, but here are the current terminal maps from Massport dated 7/1/16 to give you an idea,

http://www.massport.com/media/403813/E- ... ory-Q3.pdf
http://www.massport.com/media/403810/C- ... ory-Q6.pdf

As for the Boston tour, that would be a long $$$ walk all the way around. Although given my new outlook around hiking, that would get my 10,000 steps a day in, just not sure how to keep persuading security that I want to walk around post security for the hell of it daily.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
FGITD
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:33 pm

FGITD wrote:
It's been done for a little over a month I think. Though I haven't seen much in the way of pax roaming back and forth yet. Very bright, open space. Plus unlike most of Logan, it actually looks like it was built past 1975.

Come on you're exaggerating. Terminal A is decent and the new United terminal is great.


Yea it's a bit of an exaggeration, terminal A is very nice, and the United portion of B came out great. But the rest of B, and terminal E are way below what you'd expect.

Same old Boston story though, limited space, have to work around old infrastructure, and everything must be done while still being functional.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:01 pm

I think I've asked this before but I can't find an answer now - apologies if it's already been discussed. Does Massport have any plans to connect gates C40-C42 with the rest of Terminal C post security? Is it possible or even worth the $?
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:05 pm

VS4ever wrote:
As for the Boston tour, that would be a long $$$ walk all the way around. Although given my new outlook around hiking, that would get my 10,000 steps a day in, just not sure how to keep persuading security that I want to walk around post security for the hell of it daily.

US side of B to E via A and using the moving walkways thru the parking garage is not a bad walk at all. Going via C is a long way around but I've done far worse at ORD, IAH, LHR, MIA, etc.
FGITD wrote:
Yea it's a bit of an exaggeration, terminal A is very nice, and the United portion of B came out great. But the rest of B, and terminal E are way below what you'd expect.

That's debatable, IMO. While the checkin area of B is old and 70's, the airside is decent all around, with plenty of glass and natural light.
Terminal C is the opposite. Looks updated landside but very much old and tired airside. Terminal E is just cramped, plain and simple :)
AviationAddict wrote:
I think I've asked this before but I can't find an answer now - apologies if it's already been discussed. Does Massport have any plans to connect gates C40-C42 with the rest of Terminal C post security? Is it possible or even worth the $?

No official plans currently. Does B6 want those gates long term? I think that will be the deciding factor but given that B6 is currently "giving away" gates for international departures (EK, TP, S4, EI), I can't imagine that they'll need those gates once those airlines go back to Teminal E after next year.
 
FGITD
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:28 pm

S4 doesn't currently use any terminal C gates. They used to park over there for a few hours, but it's been a North cargo tow for quite awhile.

Emirates and TAP will definitely move to E in the future, but I don't actually know if Aer Lingus will. I think C is actually working out very nicely for them
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:05 pm

FGITD wrote:
S4 doesn't currently use any terminal C gates. They used to park over there for a few hours, but it's been a North cargo tow for quite awhile.

Emirates and TAP will definitely move to E in the future, but I don't actually know if Aer Lingus will. I think C is actually working out very nicely for them


I think as long as B6-EI maintain their codeshare, not sure there's a whole lot of benefit for EI to move back to E, they have pre-clearance, so they don't have to worry about CBP stuff and they are right there for connections. Maybe longer term if E gets extended and there is an opportunity to put a lounge in there, other than that, why move?


Compared to ORD and LHR, BOS is a cakewalk in terms of getting from one side to the other. I love the signs at LHR that tell you it's a 20 minute walk to the gate, no such hikes at BOS...
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:16 pm

airbazar wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
As for the Boston tour, that would be a long $$$ walk all the way around. Although given my new outlook around hiking, that would get my 10,000 steps a day in, just not sure how to keep persuading security that I want to walk around post security for the hell of it daily.

US side of B to E via A and using the moving walkways thru the parking garage is not a bad walk at all. Going via C is a long way around but I've done far worse at ORD, IAH, LHR, MIA, etc.
FGITD wrote:
Yea it's a bit of an exaggeration, terminal A is very nice, and the United portion of B came out great. But the rest of B, and terminal E are way below what you'd expect.

That's debatable, IMO. While the checkin area of B is old and 70's, the airside is decent all around, with plenty of glass and natural light.
Terminal C is the opposite. Looks updated landside but very much old and tired airside. Terminal E is just cramped, plain and simple :)
AviationAddict wrote:
I think I've asked this before but I can't find an answer now - apologies if it's already been discussed. Does Massport have any plans to connect gates C40-C42 with the rest of Terminal C post security? Is it possible or even worth the $?

No official plans currently. Does B6 want those gates long term? I think that will be the deciding factor but given that B6 is currently "giving away" gates for international departures (EK, TP, S4, EI), I can't imagine that they'll need those gates once those airlines go back to Teminal E after next year.

I think that US side is more open, airy and lot of light. The same however doesn't' hold true for the AA side as much and it does have an old look feel unless one starts walking into the new UA gates sides. Massport may hopefully redo that side when AA vacates and WN finally lands there.

On another side note, it looks like AA is going to reopen the crew base in BOS - the BOS based flight attendants who I see on my flight every week feel that the decision is nearing a closure. I think that US closed the base in 2009.
 
ual777newpaint
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:39 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:38 am

clrd4t8koff wrote:
ual777newpaint wrote:
Really? I flew a VS A340-600 from LHR-BOS two weeks ago and while I agree that their soft product is superior, I found the interior of the aircraft incredibly tired & dated (chrome gasper vents :o). Of course, Virgin's 787's are quite nice, but there's something to be said for Delta's consistency.


I have to ask - what exactly about DL's long-haul service do you find consistent?

*They use 4 different style of seats depending on the international aircraft:

757 - has a unique J class seat
767s - unique J class seat
A330/747's - unique J class seat
777 - unique J class seat

*Only on flights to China and Australia will they give pjs vs. VS where I've received them on each flight, including short flights like BOS/JFK-LHR.

*Food quality on VS is much better and more consistent

Those are my observations at least of DL's inconsistencies. I think VS is much more consistent all around.


Perhaps VS is more consistent in upper class (I haven't experienced either in person, so I'll take your word), but I do not agree in coach.

Save for some minute differences, Delta's main cabin product is about the same across their entire longhaul fleet. I can expect about the same experience on a 744 from NRT-ATL as I can on a 763 from BOS-LHR. On VS, I could fly a shiny, brand new 789 from JFK-LHR, and expect the same experience on my flight from LHR-BOS. On my return flight, I'll be disappointed to find a tired old 346 with seatback screens that are all but impossible to see, worn out upholstery, etc. I may be wrong (boarded through door 2), but I'd be pretty surprised if the upper class cabin on a 346 is even remotely as nice as those on a 789.

Also, FWIW, I wasn't particularly impressed by VS's catering, but can't speak for the premium product on either airline.


Sorry, done hijacking this thread.
318 319 320 320N 321 333 343 346 359 717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 744 752 753 762 763 76E 764 77A 77E 773 789 CRJ CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 F50 F70 MD88 MD90 DL UA WN B6 TK US U2 KL EQ MU SK GK VY AF AM KE XL KN CZ VS 3U CM CA 7P SC
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:01 am

I think that DL's inconsistencies are noticeable to us avgeeks, but probably not to the average customer. To them, in J class, there is a lay flat seat, dependable meal service and entertainment etc... I haven't been on DL 747 (need to do that before they go!) but I've been on the 763/4, 332/3 and the 777 fairly regularly and don't really notice major discrepancies.
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:55 am

VS4ever wrote:
FGITD wrote:
Emirates and TAP will definitely move to E in the future, but I don't actually know if Aer Lingus will. I think C is actually working out very nicely for them


TP has an equally close relationship with B6. In fact TP's U.S. expansion hinges on the B6 partnership for now so the argument for them to stay at C is equally strong, IMO.
However, at the end of the day I think it will come down to whether B6 needs the gates for expansion or not. An A330 takes up a huge amount of space at C (2 gates I think),
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:09 pm

airbazar wrote:
Emirates and TAP will definitely move to E in the future, but I don't actually know if Aer Lingus will. I think C is actually working out very nicely for them

[/quote]
TP has an equally close relationship with B6. In fact TP's U.S. expansion hinges on the B6 partnership for now so the argument for them to stay at C is equally strong, IMO.
However, at the end of the day I think it will come down to whether B6 needs the gates for expansion or not. An A330 takes up a huge amount of space at C (2 gates I think),[/quote]

Not so sure about that, It looks like they are using C17, as the gap between the two Emirates flights and because it's on the corner of the pier, there is certainly enough space to use C16 (as I have done that when the 773 of EK is parked there), so the question would be C18 and whether it interferes with that, but I don't think it does looking at the aerial views of that area on google maps. Now I am pretty sure you couldn't put anything bigger than a 320 next to it when C17 is being used, but it's possible. Separately looks like EI use C20 and C21 for their flights. I suspect C21 is for the 333's and C20 is for 767's or 757's, although can't confirm that.
B6 can't be too upset, because the trade off right now, was giving up 3 gates for EK, TP and EI, however they did gain access to C8-C10 (the old E1C-E gates), so their net loss is 0 and to be honest looking at the current set up for the next 4 hours on the massport tracker those are not being used to their full extent. Still plenty of room for growth by B6 if needed :)
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:36 pm

How about the two or three gates used by Alaska airlines out of Terminal C? If I remember that was C41-42 and not connected to the main C gates. Think that they can move over to Terminal B as they codeshare with AA?
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:59 pm

mass port really needs to connect C41-42 with the rest of C, they're terrible gates and no one wants them.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:53 pm

aaflyer777 wrote:
mass port really needs to connect C41-42 with the rest of C, they're terrible gates and no one wants them.


Agreed, i've often wondered why they don't send 9K down there because they would be great for their type of operation and have their own section, I am sure B6 would love to have C27 to themselves all the time. That would leave the issue of AS/SY to move out, but if B gets sorted out I am sure AS would move in with VX and that leaves SY, who could really be given one of the C8-C10 gates to keep them separate.

Win win if you ask me, but then i don't work for the airlines or massport

In other news ORH gets this..
http://www.telegram.com/news/20160822/f ... y-lighting

I'm not going to re-open the debate about possible routes for ORH, we've done that to death, but Massport has a plan and wouldn't be investing $30m if they didn't think they were going to get a return on it and I don't think 2 daily B6 flights are it...i'm not sure general aviation would cover it either.
Last edited by VS4ever on Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:11 pm

aaflyer777 wrote:
mass port really needs to connect C41-42 with the rest of C, they're terrible gates and no one wants them.

I doubt anyone is asking for it so why spend the money? Those are really no different from the gates AC uses at terminal B. Having a dedicated TSA screening checkpoint for only 2 gates is a huge benefit for both the airline and passengers. And they're probably some of the cheapest gates at BOS too due to the lack of amenities.
 
PWMTrav
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:03 pm

airbazar wrote:
aaflyer777 wrote:
mass port really needs to connect C41-42 with the rest of C, they're terrible gates and no one wants them.

I doubt anyone is asking for it so why spend the money? Those are really no different from the gates AC uses at terminal B. Having a dedicated TSA screening checkpoint for only 2 gates is a huge benefit for both the airline and passengers. And they're probably some of the cheapest gates at BOS too due to the lack of amenities.


Speaking as a passenger to those gates, the lack of pre-check sucks. Expedited is fine for keeping my shoes on, but I still have to unpack my bag.
 
cessna53996
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:27 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:36 pm

VS4ever wrote:
aaflyer777 wrote:
mass port really needs to connect C41-42 with the rest of C, they're terrible gates and no one wants them.


Agreed, i've often wondered why they don't send 9K down there because they would be great for their type of operation and have their own section, I am sure B6 would love to have C27 to themselves all the time. That would leave the issue of AS/SY to move out, but if B gets sorted out I am sure AS would move in with VX and that leaves SY, who could really be given one of the C8-C10 gates to keep them separate.

Win win if you ask me, but then i don't work for the airlines or massport

In other news ORH gets this..
http://www.telegram.com/news/20160822/f ... y-lighting

I'm not going to re-open the debate about possible routes for ORH, we've done that to death, but Massport has a plan and wouldn't be investing $30m if they didn't think they were going to get a return on it and I don't think 2 daily B6 flights are it...i'm not sure general aviation would cover it either.


I think that we're going to be seeing some movement at ORH in the near future (1-2 years out), especially right before that fancy new ILS is up and running by December of next year. People are anticipating B6 growth and the addition other carriers like G4 and NK. Stay tuned!
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:01 am

cessna53996 wrote:
I think that we're going to be seeing some movement at ORH in the near future (1-2 years out), especially right before that fancy new ILS is up and running by December of next year. People are anticipating B6 growth and the addition other carriers like G4 and NK. Stay tuned!

Does B6 operate any routes that don't begin or end at one of their Focus Cities? That would leave only ORH-LGB, ORH-SJU and ORH-JFK as potential new routes for B6. Personally I'm surprised they don't already operate ORH-JFK but they may not want to cannibalize BOS.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:20 am

airbazar wrote:
cessna53996 wrote:

Does B6 operate any routes that don't begin or end at one of their Focus Cities? That would leave only ORH-LGB, ORH-SJU and ORH-JFK as potential new routes for B6. Personally I'm surprised they don't already operate ORH-JFK but they may not want to cannibalize BOS.


There's several

Do you count DCA as focus city? Its getting there even though they do not consider it one. 12 destinations but DCA-CHS/ACK/BDL/NAS are the ones that stick out

BDL-TPA/RSW/PBI
SFO-LAS
LAX-BUF
SEA-ANC (continues on from BOS-ANC so we could always brag Logan has direct service to Alaska)
EDIT: Missed PDX-ANC


New York Market but non-JFK
LGA-RSW/TPA/PBI/SRQ
EWR-RSW/TPA/PBI/STI, Obviously STI is the outlier here
HPN-TPA/RSW/PBI

airbazar wrote:
cessna53996 wrote:
Personally I'm surprised they don't already operate ORH-JFK but they may not want to cannibalize BOS.


I wonder if it would keep the legacies out of ORH. I think AA or UA may try an ORD flight eventually especially if they get something to sweeten the pot.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN

2019: CX BOS-HKG, WE HKG-HKT, CA HKT-PEK-EWR, B6 EWR-BOS
 
johhn14
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:57 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:38 am

Emirates is going down to 1x daily for about a month and a half. EK239/240 are cancelled 01 OCT - 15 NOV. 237/238 continue to operate as normal

Appear to just be a seasonal reduction to 1x daily service, but will be interesting what might be in store for the future. I have to think they're going to up gauge to the 380 so will be curious what that means to the second rotation on an ongoing basis.

Haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but I was booked on flights during this window and received notice of their cancellation.
 
Kno
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:48 am

VS4ever wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Emirates and TAP will definitely move to E in the future, but I don't actually know if Aer Lingus will. I think C is actually working out very nicely for them


TP has an equally close relationship with B6. In fact TP's U.S. expansion hinges on the B6 partnership for now so the argument for them to stay at C is equally strong, IMO.
However, at the end of the day I think it will come down to whether B6 needs the gates for expansion or not. An A330 takes up a huge amount of space at C (2 gates I think),[/quote]

Not so sure about that, It looks like they are using C17, as the gap between the two Emirates flights and because it's on the corner of the pier, there is certainly enough space to use C16 (as I have done that when the 773 of EK is parked there), so the question would be C18 and whether it interferes with that, but I don't think it does looking at the aerial views of that area on google maps. Now I am pretty sure you couldn't put anything bigger than a 320 next to it when C17 is being used, but it's possible. Separately looks like EI use C20 and C21 for their flights. I suspect C21 is for the 333's and C20 is for 767's or 757's, although can't confirm that.
B6 can't be too upset, because the trade off right now, was giving up 3 gates for EK, TP and EI, however they did gain access to C8-C10 (the old E1C-E gates), so their net loss is 0 and to be honest looking at the current set up for the next 4 hours on the massport tracker those are not being used to their full extent. Still plenty of room for growth by B6 if needed :)[/quote]

C21 and c20 and c16 should be big enough to use without hindering other gates. United and delta had wide body's at those gates frequently when it was their terminals. Once in awhile United would equipment sub a 777 and park at c21 or c16, 747s at c16, I don't think other gates were hindered, and I know delta had parked 764s side by side at c20 and c21 when those were their gates. additionally air France used to park as large as a340s at c36 and 777s at c31 when delta would have them depart from their gates so all in all terminal c should have plenty of gates that can suit a large plane unless JetBlue did significant changes I'm not aware of.
 
seat24charlie
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:34 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:20 pm

johhn14 wrote:
Emirates is going down to 1x daily for about a month and a half. EK239/240 are cancelled 01 OCT - 15 NOV. 237/238 continue to operate as normal

Appear to just be a seasonal reduction to 1x daily service, but will be interesting what might be in store for the future. I have to think they're going to up gauge to the 380 so will be curious what that means to the second rotation on an ongoing basis.

Haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but I was booked on flights during this window and received notice of their cancellation.


Yeah, tell me about it. They gave me a scare last night by removing my DXB-BOS sector on a BOS-DXB-SIN-DXB-BOS trip I'm flying in October, and then moved me to 405/237 for the return leg.

Pretty irritating - I chose 239 because I wanted to avoid the mid-afternoon crush at E, and now we're arriving right in the middle of it. Not the best thing to return to after 20+ hrs, but hey-ho.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:25 pm

johhn14 wrote:
Emirates is going down to 1x daily for about a month and a half. EK239/240 are cancelled 01 OCT - 15 NOV. 237/238 continue to operate as normal

Appear to just be a seasonal reduction to 1x daily service, but will be interesting what might be in store for the future. I have to think they're going to up gauge to the 380 so will be curious what that means to the second rotation on an ongoing basis.

Haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but I was booked on flights during this window and received notice of their cancellation.


I wonder if this due to light loads or a lack of 77W with the crew rests to operate it. I recall when EK first started the 2nd daily flight to BOS they were operating it with a 77L even though it was announced as a 77W due to lack of 77Ws with the appropriate crew rest capabilities for their longer flights to North America.

Be interesting to know if any other EK routes are seeing adjustments as well.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9771
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:32 pm

Kno wrote:
C21 and c20 and c16 should be big enough to use without hindering other gates. United and delta had wide body's at those gates frequently when it was their terminals. Once in awhile United would equipment sub a 777 and park at c21 or c16, 747s at c16, I don't think other gates were hindered, and I know delta had parked 764s side by side at c20 and c21 when those were their gates. additionally air France used to park as large as a340s at c36 and 777s at c31 when delta would have them depart from their gates so all in all terminal c should have plenty of gates that can suit a large plane unless JetBlue did significant changes I'm not aware of.

The question is not whether the gates can suit a large plane. The question is whether an adjacent gate has to be closed as it happens at terminal A when DL uses the A330. The 767 is Group IV while the 777/A330 are Group V. So while a 767 may cause no problems at all, an A330 could cause the adjacent gate to be closed.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2291
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:55 pm

airbazar wrote:
Kno wrote:
C21 and c20 and c16 should be big enough to use without hindering other gates. United and delta had wide body's at those gates frequently when it was their terminals. Once in awhile United would equipment sub a 777 and park at c21 or c16, 747s at c16, I don't think other gates were hindered, and I know delta had parked 764s side by side at c20 and c21 when those were their gates. additionally air France used to park as large as a340s at c36 and 777s at c31 when delta would have them depart from their gates so all in all terminal c should have plenty of gates that can suit a large plane unless JetBlue did significant changes I'm not aware of.

The question is not whether the gates can suit a large plane. The question is whether an adjacent gate has to be closed as it happens at terminal A when DL uses the A330. The 767 is Group IV while the 777/A330 are Group V. So while a 767 may cause no problems at all, an A330 could cause the adjacent gate to be closed.


In the case of the C gates, the answer to that is no, they do not have to be closed. C17 and C21 are on corners. I've used C16 when the EK is on the stand at C17, so I know that's not the issue. C20 and C21 are next to each other, so the 330 on C21 would not impinge on the 767 on C20 and those flights come in very close together.
Here's the schedule at the moment for today.

C19 has departures at 3.45 and 5.35
C20 has the shannon arrival at 1.15 and doesn't leave until 7.15
C21 has the Dublin arrival at 1.45 and leaves at 6

(so all 3 can co-exist)

The only thing I am uncertain about and this comes down to B6 gate scheduling is C18 and C17, but again, as C17 is on the corner, if the others are ok, I don't see this being an issue either.
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos