Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
BDL757
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:17 pm

There's word going around that we (DL) will start flying BOS-DUB and that the BOS focus city will have ~120ish flights by 2018. These are all rumors of course so take it with a grain of salt. :)
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:52 pm

BDL757 wrote:
There's word going around that we (DL) will start flying BOS-DUB and that the BOS focus city will have ~120ish flights by 2018. These are all rumors of course so take it with a grain of salt. :)


It is a rumor that wouldn't surprise me though. With BOS-DUB, DL would be serving the top 3 Europe O+D markets from BOS (London, Paris, Dublin) and including AMS-BOS and codesharing on FCO-BOS they would have half of the top 10.

If its going to 120 - they have to have flights to Chicago and D.C. above anything else. I will say this as well - they should enter BOS-AUA.

I wonder if they will play Lawn Dart Roulette on some routes (i.e return to BOS-SDF or enter BOS-BUF to mess with B6)
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
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:51 pm

rsanzo wrote:
-UA increases capacity on BOS-SFO by up-gauging aircraft to 344 seater 777-200 (17% increase in capacity), begins Oct 6--> ***NOTE: As of Oct 6, 2016 UA will have 3 flights per day (out of a total of 7 daily UA flights) on the BOS-SFO route with lie-flat seats in First Class. I haven´t seen this discussed in this forum yet. There's an evident knife fight beginning to emerge over the BOS-SFO transcon route, which I´m sure will continue to increase in competition, and bring additional, future enhancement. This looks like United's response to jetBlue's Mint implementation; and the recent addition by Delta appears to not only be a response to jetBlue, but given UA's BOS-SFO route expansion and lie-flat premium seats in First, it looks as though Delta is not losing out on this lucrative transcon market; who knows, maybe they´ll also bring in equipment with lie-flat seats in first class cabin. Now begs the question.... Isn't it only logical AA makes a move on BOS-SFO, given that jetBlue, United, Delta and Virgin are all fighting over it? Why would AA forfeit what seems to be guaranteed premium product revenue? There is clearly a market for it given all the movement amongst carriers on the route. If B6 is going 4x daily with Mint (4th daily flight effective summer 2017), UA 3x daily with lie-flat seats in First (1x daily 777-200 with 32 seats in first, 2x daily 757-200 with 24 seats in first per flight), and DL 2x daily with 757-200, the competition and existence of a premium market worth fighting over is obviously validated and the route presents itself as being very profitable... so again I ask, where is AA, what are they waiting for???)


Are we sure they are adding Int'l J into the market? I see a domestic/Hawaii 777 has been added and that does have a slightly better seat that F in a 737 but it doesn't look like UA is adding "UnitedBusiness" (soon to be called Polaris) to the route.

Now even that said, its interesting how UA is taking B6 very seriously in this market. UA's move shows four interesting things (from my vantage point): just how important SFO-BOS is to UA that they will beef up this route in such a significant way to take traffic, second how B6 is clearly taking business traffic, how there are apparently enough companies/organizations that allows paid (booked as F/J) on trans-cons between BOS & SFO and finally how true premium cabins are less captive to corporate contracts. Most domestic corporate traffic is sold as Y tickets with the passenger either using their frequent flyer benefits to upgrade or the employee paying themselves (or padding in an expense account). Some businesses, entertainment media and finance being the classic examples, they allow (require if you are SAG member flying for work) to fly in paid-F/J but its not common. In those markets where you can actually sell the F cabin there is a lot of money to be made, but this isn't going to be your standard corporate traveler (i.e. the 25 year old PriceWaterhouse "consultant" or the 45 year old IT-expert) shelling out $3K to $5K for a plane ticket. And note: A round trip F-class ticket from BOS to SFO can be had for less than $1,000 all fall.

I continue to feel that B6 is adding Mint Service to differentiate themselves in the market, capture frequent flyers and some corporate accounts with an incredible upgrade and pull in some high-yield traffic as a bonus. That might be all it is and UA is merely puling a page from the old NW playbook (flood the market with seats and a me-too product). At a $1million+* cost to retrofit an A321 (or a 737-900 or 757-200) with a premium cabin, its an expensive bet to capture extra ticket revenue that probably will never appear. If we assume they can fill a 16 seat J cabin on a 757 both ways each day and get an extra $1K per seat (each way) over the current fare, it takes 32 days to recapture the cost of the implementation. Now factor in that a nonstop r/t in MINT is selling for as little as $1200 and that this represents, maybe, a $100 premium over regular F. Then you are actually losing money because those 16 J seats could have been 20 F seats. In other words, unless B6 is going to charge at leaf $3,000 to fly from BOS to SFO/LAX in mint, then it doesn't make sense for UA/AA/DL to add Int'l J to the route.

As for AA: color me shocked if they add SFO and/or if they pull out a 321T for the route. AA seems less interested in BOS than ever and doesn't have a strong franchise in SFO (compared to other major cities in the country). Why would you get into a five-way-fist-flight on a route that requires almost one frame per round trip between two out-markets in your route system? For UA/B6 and AS(VX) it connects a hub and for DL they are both cities DL is trying to be a major business player in. Doug Parker doesn't really like out-markets. He dropped all P2P flying at HP and then dismantled nearly all of it at US (plus two hubs). This might not be a no-way AA, but it's not very likely.


* The $1m per aircraft is the rough number DL acknowledged when DL retrofitted the former TWA 757s into the TATL 757s. That number did include some significant Y upgrades as well but the transaction also happened in 2007...so the total is likely to be similar if we account for 10 years of inflation.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:59 pm

BDL757 wrote:
There's word going around that we (DL) will start flying BOS-DUB and that the BOS focus city will have ~120ish flights by 2018. These are all rumors of course so take it with a grain of salt. :)


That was the rumor around Logan but then SFO and some caribbean was announced. DUB would be nice and since it can actually be done on a 737 never mind a 757 or larger, its an easy add. Depends on how many Int'l J configured jets DL has and if they can make more money elsewhere. To be honest, they could easily use a domestic configured jet (i.e. no DeltaOne service) on this route without much consequence given that you are barely in the air longer than BOS-California but I just don't see DL breaking the rule of DeltaOne on all TATL routes.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:26 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
--AV has approved future flights from BOG-BOS.[...]
This seemed like a route that was supposed to happen this year. Also AV could upgrade the IAD route to an A320 or A321 and put an A319 on BOS.

I'm not sure that the A321 could even do the route and the A320 might be limited, all thanks to the 8,000+ft alt of BOG.
I know they fly an A320 to JFK but I suspect that it carries nothing at all besides the pax and their bags. They can do that because they also operate a 787 and an
A330 on that route both of which have payload to spare.

adamh8297 wrote:
One additional happening maybe involve the thawing of KE and DL.... it wouldn't be crazy to see BOS-ICN on either carrier now (though fleet wise less likely for DL) and why not a 77W (have 10 more on order) from KE on the route instead of waiting for 787. We've also discussed their A332's as a possibility.

No reason to wait for a 787. It's right on the edge of the range for an A332 in KE's low density config, but it should work. Do they have any of the 242t A332's on order? Having said that, KE might be about to go through some rough financial waters so this may not be a good time to start a new long haul route.
 
BDL757
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:16 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
BDL757 wrote:
There's word going around that we (DL) will start flying BOS-DUB and that the BOS focus city will have ~120ish flights by 2018. These are all rumors of course so take it with a grain of salt. :)


It is a rumor that wouldn't surprise me though. With BOS-DUB, DL would be serving the top 3 Europe O+D markets from BOS (London, Paris, Dublin) and including AMS-BOS and codesharing on FCO-BOS they would have half of the top 10.

If its going to 120 - they have to have flights to Chicago and D.C. above anything else. I will say this as well - they should enter BOS-AUA.

I wonder if they will play Lawn Dart Roulette on some routes (i.e return to BOS-SDF or enter BOS-BUF to mess with B6)


I would expect them to add (resume actually) more BOS-Florida flights as well.

MSP/JFK-KEF were flown this summer with non flatbed 757s so DL could do the same with BOS-DUB, however, since they would be competing with EI who has a business class product (I believe they have flat beds) I'd expect DL to use a flat bed D1 equipped plane.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:28 pm

Found some interesting data that may be the result of market stimulation CX BOS-HKG.

Comes from this story on O+D markets for CTU on RoutesOnline: http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/bre ... d-markets/

3 Categories of top 20 lists (Top Domestic, Top International, and Top Intercontinental O+D) for CTU for the first half of 2016. BOS does make the last list and it is the 18th largest intercontinental market for CTU. Its not a big market - around 11 PDEW so don't get your hopes up for a nonstop on HU or CA in the near future.

The big picture here: the O+D is up 65% YOY for the same 6 month period. It didn't make the top 200 listed in the report so it is assumed to be less than 3.5 PDEW.

My opinion - this is a potential result of stimulation by CX making more convenient 1-stop connections to CTU. CX didn't start until May 2015. The only other possibility is that HU increased links between PEK and CTU making more convenient connections to feed the BOS flight. I also considered the UA SFO-CTU flight as well but that service started in 2014.

If you put BOS-CTU in the brookings report on 2011 O+D it would have been the 118th largest International Market from BOS. It didn't make the top 200 listed in the report so it is assumed to be less than 3.5 PDEW. CAN, China's third largest city had a similar number in 2011. Would love to know the stimulation on BOS-CAN.

Image


airbazar wrote:
I'm not sure that the A321 could even do the route and the A320 might be limited, all thanks to the 8,000+ft alt of BOG.
I know they fly an A320 to JFK but I suspect that it carries nothing at all besides the pax and their bags. They can do that because they also operate a 787 and an
A330 on that route both of which have payload to spare.


I don't know much about high and hot ops.... does BOG having a 12K foot runway help? Is there any mountains that need to be climbed over ala STT? I do realize BOG-IAD is 233miles shorter than BOG-BOS but East Coast-BOG routes are generally North-South.


airbazar wrote:
No reason to wait for a 787. It's right on the edge of the range for an A332 in KE's low density config, but it should work. Do they have any of the 242t A332's on order? Having said that, KE might be about to go through some rough financial waters so this may not be a good time to start a new long haul route.


They have 10 77W's (low density J seat 277), 7 A332's (all seat 218 - nice number for a new route), and 3 748's too for planes that could make the route.
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
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:23 am

to add into the discussion about BOS-DUB, it's quite clear from the loads particularly in the summer month that there is absolutely room for a seasonal DL BOS-DUB and it would be a nice addition to the DL line up. I wonder if some of the DL increases in flights will happen if/when the final set of moves happens and WN heads off to Terminal B, leaving the 5 extra gates (50+ flights per day availability) for DL to expand into.

In other news, the end of next week will see the March T-100 reports released and hopefully following shortly on will be the August Massport numbers. So we will see very early news of a number of new routes that began back then. First numbers should hopefully appear from QR, DY (LGW) and SAS (although the latter ones might just be for a couple of days)

Also, I've now added the CBP data to the site, it's definitely not complete, so I would take it as a guide only, but it does look like the adjustments made to the number of officers and booths seems to have helped with the processing times. Anyway take a look and let me know what you think.

http://awhitelocks.wixsite.com/newengla ... throughput
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
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:23 am

VS4ever wrote:
In other news, the end of next week will see the March T-100 reports released and hopefully following shortly on will be the August Massport numbers. So we will see very early news of a number of new routes that began back then. First numbers should hopefully appear from QR, DY (LGW) and SAS (although the latter ones might just be for a couple of days)


WestJet BOS-YYZ started that month as well.
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
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:50 am

adamh8297 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
In other news, the end of next week will see the March T-100 reports released and hopefully following shortly on will be the August Massport numbers. So we will see very early news of a number of new routes that began back then. First numbers should hopefully appear from QR, DY (LGW) and SAS (although the latter ones might just be for a couple of days)


WestJet BOS-YYZ started that month as well.


well I know the uplift on BOS-YYZ has been pretty big given the changes in the Massport numbers, can't wait to see the reality of it. I am going to try and hunt for all the brand new routes (not uplifts as that's hard to tell from the numbers I have) and will produce that as a separate report. Stay tuned.
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.
 
hinckley
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:03 am

chrisnh wrote:
Wow, that is an impressive list! BOS has been pooping gold eggs ever since JAL in 2012! That was the start of this renaissance.


It really is hard to fathom all of the BOS international expansion in just over four years. I'm in the middle of my third RT since CX began their HKG non-stop. The prior four flights were all around 85 - 90% full. But I'm pretty sure Friday's flight was 100% full except for three empty economy plus seats. And this is 773 service on a route that wasn't even imaginable two or three years ago. I'm sure that there's been some market stimulation and some organic growth, but most of the new Asia service must represent a HUGE market that was untapped for years. The data must have been available, but just ignored. As a business guy, it's just difficult to understand how that could have happened.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:13 am

As simple as it seems, I think the biggest obstacle was that someone had to make the jump. Prove it could work, and was worth the effort to establish a new station on the other side of the planet.

Interesting times approaching. Summer schedules winding down is really leading to more speculation than before.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:53 pm

Sorry if this is old news. BA article on A380 to BOS. Initial change in schedule from March is caused by the delay in completing the new British Airways club which apparently will be connected to the new gates.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/bu ... _to_boston

I'm a little confused by the article. In the earlier part of the piece it sounds like the A380 is on track for a summer debut. Then later in the piece they make it sound iffy. I have to believe MASSPORT has a contract in place that confirms 3 airlines will commit to the A380 or why would they do all this construction and just hope airlines will upgauge?
 
hinckley
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:52 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
I'm a little confused by the article. In the earlier part of the piece it sounds like the A380 is on track for a summer debut. Then later in the piece they make it sound iffy.


According to the article, a Massport spokesperson claims BA will start A380 service in the summer. The BA spokesperson is non-committal. I'd listen to BA.

clrd4t8koff wrote:
I have to believe MASSPORT has a contract in place that confirms 3 airlines will commit to the A380 or why would they do all this construction and just hope airlines will upgauge?


I would doubt that very much. I'm sure no airline would contractually commit to use certain aircraft. Massport has said that airlines had expressed a desire to fly the A380 into Boston, but that's very different than a commitment. If you build it, they will come -- maybe.
 
hinckley
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:53 pm

hinckley wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:
I'm a little confused by the article. In the earlier part of the piece it sounds like the A380 is on track for a summer debut. Then later in the piece they make it sound iffy.

According to the article, a Massport spokesperson claims BA will start A380 service in the summer. The BA spokesperson is non-committal. I'd listen to BA.

clrd4t8koff wrote:
I have to believe MASSPORT has a contract in place that confirms 3 airlines will commit to the A380 or why would they do all this construction and just hope airlines will upgauge?

I would doubt that very much. I'm sure no airline would contractually commit to use certain aircraft. Massport has said that airlines had expressed a desire to fly the A380 into Boston, but that's very different than a commitment. If you build it, they will come -- maybe.
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:54 pm

Pretty sure EK, BA, and LH will be the three A380 operators with AF being a wild card.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:16 pm

hinckley wrote:
I would doubt that very much. I'm sure no airline would contractually commit to use certain aircraft. Massport has said that airlines had expressed a desire to fly the A380 into Boston, but that's very different than a commitment. If you build it, they will come -- maybe.


I just don't see MASSPORT forking over the money to build an expansion to terminal E specifically for A380 gates without some sort of firm commitment from a select few airlines that those gates would be used for dual-level jet bridge operations. I've lived in the BOS area for almost 20-years now and no construction project here now operates under the "if you build it they will come" mentality. This city is extremely conservative with spending money after the Big Dig fiasco, so somewhere MASSPORT has either a contract signed or something tied to a couple airlines bringing in the A380.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:54 am

At the very least the 3 new/modified gates would allow for double jet bridge oprtations on a 772/77W/744/333/343/332/763 flights. Plus the new space for clubs will be welcomed.

It's unfortunate Massport did not start the full expansion of E this year to be ready for late 2018/2019.
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2593
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:34 am

B752OS wrote:
At the very least the 3 new/modified gates would allow for double jet bridge oprtations on a 772/77W/744/333/343/332/763 flights. Plus the new space for clubs will be welcomed.

It's unfortunate Massport did not start the full expansion of E this year to be ready for late 2018/2019.


This is actually not a bad idea assuming they have built both jet bridges to align to a single level rather than the LHR option which goes straight to the upper deck. However that would really help with gate times with the 388 and 748 in particular

I agree, I wish Massport had got a quicker start on the big expansion, but given the documentation, it was always supposed to be a 2017-2021 project sadly.
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
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:59 am

Since EK and BA are 'givens' with the A380, the question is, Who between them would be first?' If not for BA's long-standing history at Logan, EK would probably be first. But they have been silent on this matter. Perhaps it's a 'courtesy thing' extended to BA.

As for LH and AF, I see neither of them using the type at Logan. Just because there will be three gates doesn't mean three airlines.
 
rsanzo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:26 am

A few different things!!!

-A close friend of mine is very high up with AA in sales and route marketing and he just told me last night that at AA there is huge talk going on right now about resuming the BOS-SFO flight, and that even though nothing is official as of yet, he felt confident enough telling me it is "highly likely" that AA will make an announcement in the not-so-distant future that BOS-SFO will be restarting.
**Looks like B6's huge success with Mint and future frequency expansion, UA increasing capacity using a 777 with lie-flat business class seats, and DL's announcement for the start of double-daily next summer has caught people's attention at AA..... I called this right after DL announced their service, there is no way that as big a player as AA is... they are NOT going to sit by while everyone gets in on this market and B6 and UA make profits on premium service, especially when AA has a good premium product. I will call it now..... DL will end up implementing lie-flat business class seats on BOS-SFO at some point after they launch flights next July; no way that won't happen when B6 and UA will have a lie-flat premium product on the segment.

-What is the deal with WN capacity increases at BOS? When is it happening, what routes, and what are the frequency increases going to?? Does anyone know when WN is moving to Terminal B? I imagine that when those last remaining 5 WN gates in Terminal A open up, DL will be all over capacity expansion.

-Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but WOW air has been bringing the A330-300 to BOS on Sundays, upping route capacity by 8%. Looking at forward bookings, they are continuing this trend for the foreseeable future. I didn't know they were looking to up capacity beyond their 7x weekly A321s. Could they end up bringing in a second flight in 2017, going to a total of 10x weekly, 11x weekly, etc.? Is there a reason/demand requiring them to make further capacity increases?
 
rsanzo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:27 am

adamh8297 wrote:
One additional happening maybe involve the thawing of KE and DL.... it wouldn't be crazy to see BOS-ICN on either carrier now (though fleet wise less likely for DL) and why not a 77W (have 10 more on order) from KE on the route instead of waiting for 787. We've also discussed their A332's as a possibility.


This has been a service resumption that I have researched quite extensively and lent a lot of thought to. I will say right off the bat, I don't see Delta starting a flight, unless they repair their JV with KE (hopefully they have given how they just strengthened their partnership in ATL with both KE and DL offering flights now to ICN from ATL), and/or DL changes how they do things. DL does not typically serve point-to-point markets outside of their major hubs. The only exceptions I've seen to this is if there is an extremely high O&D pax in the market, if they are occupying a route that is part of a JV (with Virgin Atlantic for example), or if DL is utilizing a previous NW route. While it seems like a transpacific market addition that makes a lot of sense and seems like a given, in many regards, I don´t know what to think and continue to remain skeptical. The ambiguity lies with the following two main points... 1) KE has remained pretty turned off to route development and more in favor of relying on JVs, which has left aviation analysts in the dark about their strategy due to how much KE is growing their long-haul fleet; and 2) ICN officials' repeated, public affirmations to grow the Seoul hub by 2030 to be one of the biggest and busiest airports on the globe, with 20 million annual pax just in transit traffic. Even though KE already has a pretty extensive network, they will need to connect many more points with ICN in order to achieve this goal. KE has a pretty weak domestic and regional network considering the size of their long-haul network (KE is one of the largest transpacific carriers in terms of number of markets served and route frequencies). Therefore, before KE goes on an expansion blitz like other Asian carriers recently have, they´ll need to bolster their short/medium-haul networks in order to provide the necessary feed to newly established long-haul destinations; especially to secondary markets, like Boston. What I have come to understand from reading what's being said by the airline executives, industry analysts, and just the raw data, is that Korean Air has realized that there is increased demand on the transpacific market and carriers have have been expanding at an unprecedented rate. Given all of the new seats hitting the market, KE is letting the market demand catch up with all of the new supply additions before they decide how they are going to make another go at transpacific expansion. Their caution and pause is allowing the new data to be digested by the market, and also presenting them with an opportunity to make a well thought out, calculated decision on how to proceed. Anything is possible, the aviation industry is constantly evolving and airlines go back and forth often on their intentions, so given that natural phenomenon, I do acquiesce that anything can happen at anytime- we could see KE announce an ICN-BOS flight tomorrow. While I am always hopeful and cautiously optimistic, I reserve skepticism for when carriers exercise an extremely blatant lack of transparency, or come out and affirm specific details totally contrary to expansion. Below are a number of CAPA reports detailing KE's behavior and growth ambitions:

-Check these CAPA reports out.... The first one discusses KE's early push about 5-10 years ago to become one of the largest transpacific carriers, and because of their earlier growth which has preceded the recent explosion by transpacific carriers, KE doesn't feel the need to push out new routes/frequencies like many Chinese, Japanese and U.S. carriers are doing now, due to the large transpacific growth they have already undergone.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/k ... 7-9-223844

-This details KE's ambitions for a transpacific JV, but a lot of work has needed to be done with DL because the partnership has been damaged. DL and KE just had a major breakthrough in ATL, hopefully this is the start of an improved partnership.... We'll have to wait and see how things play out.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/k ... wth-224067

-Here is an excerpt from a CAPA report that presents an interesting possibility for BOS-ICN, and given SIA's stated, ultra long-haul growth ambitions, along with their massive long-haul fleet expansion and desire to hang on to and grow their presence in North America; maybe we could see SIA make use of a JV, or possibly even an SIA flight from BOS-ICN, with 5th freedom rights allowing for transiting O&D passengers between ICN-BOS...?? The only thing that makes me weary of a JV is that the only airlines that SIA has a JV or interline agreement with that would fly transpacific out of ICN are Asiana and United.... OZ has come under some financial difficulty, so I am not sure if large-scale, long-haul expansion is in the cards for them; and UA is just not going to start flying ICN-BOS. Therefore, the only possibility I see is SIA opening up a base in ICN to serve US markets, like Ethiopian is working to develop right now in DUB.

"SIA EVP commercial Mak Swee Wah said at the group’s 1Q2014 results briefing that starting to make use of the carrier’s Seoul gateway for codeshare services to North America is part of its broader strategy of expanding partnerships and relying more on partners to cover the US market. “These are all means to retain as much of the US market as we can while we have cut back on the unprofitable ultra long-haul flights,” Mr Mak explained."

Original article- http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/s ... ive-248462

-Seoul's stated growth ambitions to move towards 100 million pax by 2030, with 20% of that in transit traffic alone. KE or OZ will have to make a big move to get ICN there.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/s ... 030-274544


-Overcapacity on the transpacific market is causing KE to pause in order to see how the market responds, and give themselves time to carefully determine how to proceed.
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/a ... its-300744

-This is the interesting development we should all be looking out for. EVA's next four cities that they list for their long-term expansion are: Barcelona, Boston, Rome and Washington D.C. BR listed in a report this year that Boston was under review as being a potential new candidate for route expansion- looks like it passed the test! Although, some big things have happened at BR that have left route expansion hanging in balance.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/a ... air-293746

-Report from Dec 2015 that makes first mention of EVA looking to expand to BOS
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/e ... air-258894

adamh8297 wrote:
There's also Thomas Cook Belgium starting up.... may see a similar BOS-BRU seasonal service.


-This is interesting, although, the carrier doesn't have any fleet currently or on order to make the transatlantic trip. I imagine they could get aircraft from any of their three sister companies??? But even then, no subsidiaries under the parent Thomas Cook Group (HQ, DK, DE, MT) have any available aircraft, current or on order...
Last edited by rsanzo on Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
rsanzo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:39 am

chrisnh wrote:
On the UA 777. First, I thought that was only a temporary thing. Is it seen in the schedules into 2017? Second, I also thought the plane was one of their 'cattle-car' Hawaiian configurations...yes, a big plane, but a horribly packed one. Is that a carrot or a stick?


airbazar wrote:
Just as much sense as putting a 777 on a route usually operated by a 738/752. I just don't see that much demand for that kind of increase in capacity. Frequency, not volume is key on this route. Either the public is about to get lots of cheap tickets, or UA is about to lose some money. Or both.


N717TW wrote:
Are we sure they are adding Int'l J into the market? I see a domestic/Hawaii 777 has been added and that does have a slightly better seat that F in a 737 but it doesn't look like UA is adding "UnitedBusiness" (soon to be called Polaris) to the route.

Now even that said, its interesting how UA is taking B6 very seriously in this market. UA's move shows four interesting things (from my vantage point): just how important SFO-BOS is to UA that they will beef up this route in such a significant way to take traffic, second how B6 is clearly taking business traffic, how there are apparently enough companies/organizations that allows paid (booked as F/J) on trans-cons between BOS & SFO and finally how true premium cabins are less captive to corporate contracts. Most domestic corporate traffic is sold as Y tickets with the passenger either using their frequent flyer benefits to upgrade or the employee paying themselves (or padding in an expense account). Some businesses, entertainment media and finance being the classic examples, they allow (require if you are SAG member flying for work) to fly in paid-F/J but its not common. In those markets where you can actually sell the F cabin there is a lot of money to be made, but this isn't going to be your standard corporate traveler (i.e. the 25 year old PriceWaterhouse "consultant" or the 45 year old IT-expert) shelling out $3K to $5K for a plane ticket. And note: A round trip F-class ticket from BOS to SFO can be had for less than $1,000 all fall.

I continue to feel that B6 is adding Mint Service to differentiate themselves in the market, capture frequent flyers and some corporate accounts with an incredible upgrade and pull in some high-yield traffic as a bonus. That might be all it is and UA is merely puling a page from the old NW playbook (flood the market with seats and a me-too product). At a $1million+* cost to retrofit an A321 (or a 737-900 or 757-200) with a premium cabin, its an expensive bet to capture extra ticket revenue that probably will never appear. If we assume they can fill a 16 seat J cabin on a 757 both ways each day and get an extra $1K per seat (each way) over the current fare, it takes 32 days to recapture the cost of the implementation. Now factor in that a nonstop r/t in MINT is selling for as little as $1200 and that this represents, maybe, a $100 premium over regular F. Then you are actually losing money because those 16 J seats could have been 20 F seats. In other words, unless B6 is going to charge at leaf $3,000 to fly from BOS to SFO/LAX in mint, then it doesn't make sense for UA/AA/DL to add Int'l J to the route.


I hope that this clears up any and all confusion regarding whether UA is increasing capacity and if they are bringing in lie-flat business class seats on BOS-SFO. It's 100% and it's not temporary. Check out all of the reports, articles and UA quarterly investor statement I posted below......... I agree with your logic, airbazar. BOS-SFO is a high frequency, highly travelled, large business, market segment, and UA, VX and B6 have already got it pretty well covered, by offering between 10x-13x daily flights on the route (depending on the day). On this particular segment, having a large frequency variation yields more profitability and success, because that is what this specific market demands- travelers on this route like to have a lot of choices. I agree with you there, absolutely, but there are a few key components I feel everyone is overlooking regarding BOS-SFO, the strength of this particular market, and the huge potential for big profits from implementing a premium product.

DL will be adding 2x daily flights on 757-200s next June, and B6 will be upping their SFO flights to 4x daily next July.... Unless there is a reduction of flights by other carriers, which will not happen, it will go 13x-16x daily flights between the city pairs. No one will reduce flights because that means they will lose market share to another carrier, and BOS-SFO is not a route airlines want to lose market share on given its financial success and high demand; so, therefore, I think it will go up to 16x daily flights in total from all carriers. SFO is near the top of the list in terms of traffic from BOS; by the end of 2016 there will be at least 750,000 pax on the route, and with all the capacity increases and new flights, by the end of 2017 I expect that number to be even closer to 1 million pax. It's a huge market that caters to leisure traffic, huge amounts of business traffic, and connecting traffic heading to Asia.

However, this is not a move by UA that is based principally on if whether the market yields enough demand or not, but instead a much more important economic aspect that they are trying to take control of. With UA adding the newly reconfigured 777-200; which UA is in the process of reconfiguring as we speak with the intended goal of having the newly configured 364 seat 777 operating on all domestic routes by May 2017 where it is already scheduled at that time to be flying BOS-SFO, UA is doing two key things: 1) Executing an ambitious and gutsy business strategy in an attempt to manipulate market economics; and 2) Getting in on the premium service demand that clearly exists in this market; demand that B6 has an uninhibited monopoly on right now (there's a reason why B6 launched Mint on BOS-SFO before BOS-LAX, or any other market segment from BOS for that matter). I work in the securities industry with an asset management group as a buy side trader, working mostly with the energy industry/oil and gas sector, and I see this kind of play often done by governments, corporations and/or investors across all industries in an attempt to pinch an industry or sector and manipulate the market dynamics in an effort to shore up one's position and influence in that respective market environment- OPEC nations are playing this game with Russia, Canada and the U.S. right now, and against fellow OPEC member states, with regard to oil production and attempt at stealing market share, while not paying much attention to the price and willing to operate at a loss in order to gain that market share. UA is attempting to influence the flow of passenger traffic in their favor on this segment by flooding BOS-SFO with a ton of Y class seats, so that UA can try to undercut the other carriers and steal their market share out from under them by going into a volume business and slashing fares way down as a calculated, strategic move to bring passengers over to UA from VX and B6, and consolidate that share before Delta comes in, and likely AA as well. If they flood the market with seats and have way more seat offerings than the other carriers, UA puts itself in a unique position where they can still turn a profit; however small, because lots of seats, even at a low price, will yield revenue, provided there are butts in them.

However, butts in the seats is not the centerpiece of their main strategy it seems, given that there is no way they will operate that plane at or near full capacity. While making money tends to almost always be the goal, this is not United's primary objective in the short-term. The objective that UA is fixated on is stealing/maintaining market share from jetBlue, Virgin and Delta; and I believe they would be willing to sacrifice turning a profit, in the short-term, in order to do so because it will result in them having a superior position in this market in the long-term (if anyone ever does their MBA or takes a class in M&As (Mergers and Acquisitions) this is a principal financial strategy that you will learn about). However, a move like this typically becomes a dangerous one, because UA would need to fill a good number of those Y class seats, but UA won't have to worry as much about having to operate at 80%+ full in Y class because, as part of their two-pronged approach, they have a contingency in place to mitigate risk associated with low load factors........... lie-flat business class seats in a transcontinental market that demands them and does not supply enough of them (from the data and news from B6 that I've seen, their Mint cabin every flight goes out at or around 100% capacity. UA will turn a decent profit with a mostly full business class, and 65% full in Y class because the 777 has good operating economics, and it's much more fuel efficient than 757s and 767s. Look at the BOS-LHR flight operated by DL using 767-300ER, for example- DL has terrible loads on that flight, and a 767 has terrible operating economics compared to the 777, but it's worth it because DL makes their money on their J class seats. UA will need to be on their game though if they want to be successful in a macro way on this flight. They will need to improve their customer service, brand and product recognition, and in-flight service that is offered; amongst several other things, if they not only want to capture the market share, but hang on to it... especially once Delta starts up, and potentially AA.

Looking at the environment of this market, UA absolutely has to resort to cut-throat economics if they want to stay the biggest carrier serving the route, which they have been for a long time- by July 2017, there will be four carriers competing on this route, and then there will be five if/when AA announces. The worst thing that can happen to any big corporation is if their name/product gets a negative reputation or pushed out of the way by a competitor- UA would suffer long-term on BOS-SFO if that were to occur, permanently affecting their notoriety and status on the segment; and they are not willing to let happen, given they operate 7 flights per day Mon-Fri. Not to mention, they'd get replaced as the #1 on that route in terms of market share by someone else. They'll operate at a loss in the short-term if they have to because preserving their market share and stealing the competitor's is the real prize here; the revenue will come with the preservation and expansion of market share, as well as from offering a premium product. They are covering all the angles by adding a ton of Y seats, and also providing lie-flat J seats, which will set them up for some heated competition with B6 and all other carriers on the route. Another thing UA will have going for themselves on the route over everyone else is great operating frequency, which will provide passengers with the convenience of choice privileges. From just the standpoint of offering lie-flat J seats, I think UA will be very successful even if their Y load factor sucks because they will earn huge revenues from those 28 first class seats, which they won't have trouble filling. Many companies in Boston Metro have been lobbying Massport and airlines over the past couple of years to add a premium first class product on BOS-SFO flights because they want it. When there is a demand for a product type, there isn't room for only one business to make it available. Competition will provide the consumer with choice benefit when selecting, as well as drive down the price of the product. So, with that said, we'll see what happens, and if UA can pull off this catch 22 with their market manipulation economics!

To clear up all the doubt/confusion about United's capacity increase and premium service implementation plans:

-UA Quarterly news release from Q1 2015, mentions intention to reconfigure 777s for domestic use (doesn't mention Hawaiian 777s at this point):
http://ir.united.com/~/media/Files/U/Un ... -final.pdf

-USA Today article mentions 777-200s going to domestic services, and UA undertaking operational adjustments to totally reconfigure their fleet allocation to fill in for the 777s they're pulling for domestic use by utilizing new 777-300ERs and reshuffling a combination of 767-300s and 757s around
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinth ... /26244737/

-This is UA's full quarterly statement from Q2 2016. UA's executive management team affirms that an absolute focus of theirs for 2016 and beyond, in order to increase their corporate valuation by over $3 billion through exposure to large revenue sources, will be to start targeting the lucrative premium service markets and try to capture some huge revenues from passengers and corporations that are demanding premium service. If you look at this quarterly report, as well as read the articles below regarding UA's new operational shake-up and redeployment of key aircraft, it goes without saying that they are making a play at the premium market with the domestic deployment of the 777s.
http://api40.10kwizard.com/cgi/convert/ ... pdf=1&dn=1

-UA's CEO announces a major operational shake-up to more effectively utilize their fleet to boost revenue and value by going after premium travelers on key business routes
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/united ... s-outlook/

-UA confirms that ALL of the 19 777-200s (9 from flights to Hawaii, 10 from international flights) being used for domestic flights starting this year are undergoing a full reconfiguration of the cabin and will have 10 seats across in Economy
http://fortune.com/2016/03/09/united-77 ... y-seating/

-These last two consist of a more recent USA Today article, as well as an article from the Points Guy, which underscores that ALL 777-200s moving over to domestic US services towards the end of this year (9 Hawaii configuration and 10 International configuration) will get the new 364 seat configuration- 28 Business lie-flats, 102 seats in Economy Plus, and 234 in Economy, with all 336 economy seats in 3-4-3 configuration. The cabin reconfiguration of the 777-200s will be completed by May 2017, and will be incorporated across the 19 aircraft gradually between now and then. The 777-200s will commence services before the reconfiguration is complete, and will be updated while in service. Someone said the other day that in January the 777-200 isn't flying out of BOS, so I checked in the reservation system to see what the downtime is... It's last day of operation is Jan 3, 2017; resuming May 5, 2017. It seems like UA is using the winter months to their advantage by taking the plane out of service due to reduced demand, but also to complete the lengthy reconfiguration of the entire aircraft.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... /81519220/

http://thepointsguy.com/2016/03/united- ... estic-777/

And lastly, it has been stated unequivocally that one of the first market segments to get this aircraft in its new configuration will be LAX-ORD, and that the roll out of the 777 in the new 364 seat configuration for that segment will be sometime in December 2016. Well, I went to book a fare on united.com and searched LAX-ORD, departing June 2, 2017 (well after the planned initial launch of the reconfigured aircraft) and UA flight #660 is the only 777 operating out of the 14x daily flights between the two cities on that day. Interestingly, I looked at the aircraft details for that flight and I saw that United still has the aircraft in its current configuration, which is a 344 seat Hawaii configured 777-200- same exact configuration of the BOS flight. I then did a search for BOS-SFO, departing June 8, 2017 on UA 207, which is a 777-200, and what do you know.... identical aircraft configuration as the one to LAX-ORD on June 2- a 344 seat Hawaii configured 777-200. So, it is evident that UA has loaded the aircraft into their booking systems, but they have not yet updated the aircraft in the booking system to reflect the new configuration.

-Hopefully this clears everything up about UA's plans. The announcement in routesonline.com is not accurate, if that's what people are going by (I've noticed that I often come across news on that site that is either presented in a very ambiguous manner, or sometimes even flat out wrong).
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:41 am

rsanzo wrote:
-A close friend of mine is very high up with AA in sales and route marketing and he just told me last night that at AA there is huge talk going on right now about resuming the BOS-SFO flight, and that even though nothing is official as of yet, he felt confident enough telling me it is "highly likely" that AA will make an announcement in the not-so-distant future that BOS-SFO will be restarting.


I'll believe it when I see it. Alas, an AA official even publicly acknowledged the possibility of resuming BOS-SFO - and that was over two years ago. That said, I continue to believe that AA can and should be in the BOS-SFO market. AA is larger at both BOS and SFO than Delta, AA still maintains a strong transcon franchise out of BOS with a leadership position to LAX and the Alaska FF partnership, and this now has to be among the, if not the single, largest transcon O&D market/s where AA is absent. The market is very large and very premium, and I think AA could make 2-3 daily 737s work. That, along with resuming a few other key, business-heavy and/or large O&D markets out of BOS - like 3-4x daily CR7/E75 RDU, possibly 3x daily CR7/E75 YYZ, and maybe even 4-5x weekly 737 LAS - make total sense to me, and I sincerely hope they happen. But again, I'll believe it when I see it.
 
rsanzo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:28 am

commavia wrote:
I'll believe it when I see it. Alas, an AA official even publicly acknowledged the possibility of resuming BOS-SFO - and that was over two years ago. That said, I continue to believe that AA can and should be in the BOS-SFO market. AA is larger at both BOS and SFO than Delta, AA still maintains a strong transcon franchise out of BOS with a leadership position to LAX and the Alaska FF partnership, and this now has to be among the, if not the single, largest transcon O&D market/s where AA is absent. The market is very large and very premium, and I think AA could make 2-3 daily 737s work. That, along with resuming a few other key, business-heavy and/or large O&D markets out of BOS - like 3-4x daily CR7/E75 RDU, possibly 3x daily CR7/E75 YYZ, and maybe even 4-5x weekly 737 LAS - make total sense to me, and I sincerely hope they happen. But again, I'll believe it when I see it.


I hear that and identify with your skepticism. Airlines flip-flop all the time when it comes to stating their intentions, and most of the claims they make when it comes to hypothesizing about future route development often times are totally unsubstantiated. However, my friend... I've known him 20 years and he's worked for AA for over 30 years, and he's an Executive VP. Most of the things he has told me in the past have come to fruition. He stated the lineage of this has developed so quickly..... He stated that over the last few days senior management and analysts have been behind closed doors trying to come to a quick decision about this route. He said that AA started re-evaluating the route's viability at the beginning of the summer season (right after Easter) when jetBlue launched Mint service to SFO from BOS. Then, they started considering it much more seriously when UA came out with news of adding their 777-200 on the route, with 28 lie-flat business class seats. When Delta announced resumption of service last month with double daily 757-200s, AA senior management ordered the evaluation process be expedited. Then, according to him, the lynchpin that has all but sealed their decision to relaunch it was when jetBlue announced in conjunction with their new ATL service, expanded capacity to SFO next July with a 4th daily flight on an A321 configured with Mint class. I'm sure I'll hear some updates from him pretty soon, so I will have to report back.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:36 am

rsanzo wrote:
He stated the lineage of this has developed so quickly..... He stated that over the last few days senior management and analysts have been behind closed doors trying to come to a quick decision about this route. He said that AA started re-evaluating the route's viability at the beginning of the summer season (right after Easter) when jetBlue launched Mint service to SFO from BOS. Then, they started considering it much more seriously when UA came out with news of adding their 777-200 on the route, with 28 lie-flat business class seats. When Delta announced resumption of service last month with double daily 757-200s, AA senior management ordered the evaluation process be expedited.


Good - glad to hear it. This route makes sense, and I'm glad if AA's leadership and network/revenue management teams are seriously evaluating it. As said, I think it makes infinite sense now - and, for that matter, it did even before Delta and Mint. I'll believe it when I see it.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:37 am

I think that a few interesting things are playing out now that we've gone from 6 majors to 3 majors (plus WN, B6) and we're seeing the changes in market dynamics play out in BOS.

- The remaining legacies will opportunistically add routes outside of their hub and spoke network and will pursue them. DL is probably the furthest along in this line of thinking for no other reason than their merger had a head start. I do think we'll see AA and UA follow suit. RDU is another example where this is happening. I think we will see this from urban areas that aren't hubs - BOS is probably the largest non-hub city, so it's easy to see, but there are more RDU's out there. I think PIT, CMH, AUS, and other growth cities will eventually see legacy carriers add flights. Urbanization (especially on the coasts) is another macroeconomic trend that will make this more appealing to carriers.

- I think we will see more wide bodies on transcontinental routes. The economic growth engines are on the coasts plus some key interior cities. Frequencies on narrow bodies have an inflection point where adding a wide body makes more sense. I think we're seeing that and SFO to EWR/JFK and then SFO-BOS are good examples of where that is the case. What I wonder about is how much carriers can continue to rely on one brand for all domestic service - there clearly is a premium market for lay flat seats, differentiated service etc... I think the branding is kind of muddled now on those routes. Mint clearly is not, but for the legacies, you're kind of getting an international experience on some routes (like DL - JFK/SFO)
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: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:17 pm

It puzzles me as to why AA management, comprising pretty sharp folks who ought to be able to figure this stuff out on their own, need the actions of OTHER airlines to spur them on here. Surely what UA and DL and B6 did on BOS-SFO wasn't some 'Ah-Hah!' moment for AA, was it? That would be pretty laughable.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:19 pm

I think for AA, it's more to do with the fact that they have been focused on completing the merger. I think now that they're largely out of the other side of that, we'll see more of the go-forward strategy start to unfold.
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
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:54 pm

rsanzo wrote:
A few different things!!!

-A close friend of mine is very high up with AA in sales and route marketing and he just told me last night that at AA there is huge talk going on right now about resuming the BOS-SFO flight, and that even though nothing is official as of yet, he felt confident enough telling me it is "highly likely" that AA will make an announcement in the not-so-distant future that BOS-SFO will be restarting.
**Looks like B6's huge success with Mint and future frequency expansion, UA increasing capacity using a 777 with lie-flat business class seats, and DL's announcement for the start of double-daily next summer has caught people's attention at AA..... I called this right after DL announced their service, there is no way that as big a player as AA is... they are NOT going to sit by while everyone gets in on this market and B6 and UA make profits on premium service, especially when AA has a good premium product. I will call it now..... DL will end up implementing lie-flat business class seats on BOS-SFO at some point after they launch flights next July; no way that won't happen when B6 and UA will have a lie-flat premium product on the segment.

-What is the deal with WN capacity increases at BOS? When is it happening, what routes, and what are the frequency increases going to?? Does anyone know when WN is moving to Terminal B? I imagine that when those last remaining 5 WN gates in Terminal A open up, DL will be all over capacity expansion.

-Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but WOW air has been bringing the A330-300 to BOS on Sundays, upping route capacity by 8%. Looking at forward bookings, they are continuing this trend for the foreseeable future. I didn't know they were looking to up capacity beyond their 7x weekly A321s. Could they end up bringing in a second flight in 2017, going to a total of 10x weekly, 11x weekly, etc.? Is there a reason/demand requiring them to make further capacity increases?


My guess is WW has an extra A330 lying around on Sundays (SFO and LAX are only served 6/7 days a week) and thats why BOS sees it.
 
cloudboy
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:07 pm

Regarding the A380 gates...how often does BOS see diversions from JFK due to weather, etc. of the A380?
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:51 pm

hinckley wrote:
I'm sure that there's been some market stimulation and some organic growth, but most of the new Asia service must represent a HUGE market that was untapped for years. The data must have been available, but just ignored. As a business guy, it's just difficult to understand how that could have happened.

Oil at $100 per barrel, what's how.
In addition the "Chinese connection" wasn't nearly as strong 5-10 years ago as it is today.
aaflyer777 wrote:
Pretty sure EK, BA, and LH will be the three A380 operators with AF being a wild card.

Even if no one brings the A380, the expansion alone will be very welcomed and the double jetways will make boarding and deplaning from a 747/77W that much faster, thus potentially speeding turn-around times and improving gate utilization. And lets not forget that in a few years time we'll be seeing 779's and A350-1000's
clrd4t8koff wrote:
I just don't see MASSPORT forking over the money to build an expansion to terminal E specifically for A380 gates without some sort of firm commitmen

The expansion is not A380 specific. Everything they are doing will be beneficial to every passenger using terminal E. The expansion is a reaction to the growth in international demand at Logan, and in that project it makes sense to build 3 gates that can also handle A380 aircraft. But that's just one of many characteristics of the overall project.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:21 pm

airbazar wrote:
The expansion is not A380 specific. Everything they are doing will be beneficial to every passenger using terminal E. The expansion is a reaction to the growth in international demand at Logan, and in that project it makes sense to build 3 gates that can also handle A380 aircraft. But that's just one of many characteristics of the overall project.


I understand that, but why spend the extra money to make the gates dual-level if they didn't have commitments from a few airlines that they were actually going to use them. I can't say as though I've ever seen a 747 with a gate attached to the upper deck. Expansion aside, MASSPORT could have saved a chunk of money by just having standard gates or single-level double gates.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:57 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
t, but why spend the extra money to make the gates dual-level if they didn't have commitments from a few airlines that they were actually going to use them. I can't say as though I've ever seen a 747 with a gate attached to the upper deck. Expansion aside, MASSPORT could have saved a chunk of money by just having standard gates or single-level double gates.

First of all no airline is going to sign a document committing to operating a certain type of aircraft, on a route, period but I suspect the some airlines have told Massport that they are likely to use the A380. So why would Massport do it anyway, without an official commitment? Because building the gates now is probably a lot cheaper and easier than after the terminal extension is built, and they feel confident that the gates will be used. And because airports are in the business of attracting increasing numbers of passengers and with 5 customers currently having A380's in their fleet, having the infrastructure makes it easier for them and other potential airlines to operate the aircraft into BOS. Sadly spending money to make money is a concept that is often lost in the American aviation landscape. Everyone is caught up on the present and we never seem to build for the future. I suspect Massport learned that lesson when it originally expanded terminal E but it cut short the original design and now we have the zoo that we have. Or when DL built terminal A without FIS facilities and are now forced to tow aircraft across opposite ends of the airport. In the big scheme of the project, each jetbridge at about $300k-$400k is not that much when you consider the life expectancy. And if it's not needed you can just pull it out and sell it to someone else move it to replace an old gate which has to happen from time to time. I believe that's what DFW did at one point, they turned a single A380 gate into 2 "regular" gates, but I could be thinking of some other airport.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:01 pm

I am looking forward to Massport releasing more concrete plans of the E expansion.

I doubt this will happen, but I would like to see the 2 piers in C completely demolished and rebuilt. They've made the check-in area, security area and the area just beyond security really nice. Once you go down to the gate areas things go downhill quickly.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:13 pm

BOS gets a decent number of JFK diversions, including some this past summer when the t-storms were brutal. AF diverted a 380 to BOS, for one.
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
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26559
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:47 pm

airbazar wrote:
First of all no airline is going to sign a document committing to operating a certain type of aircraft, on a route, period but I suspect the some airlines have told Massport that they are likely to use the A380.


A few years ago Lufthansa signed a document agreeing to A380 service to MIA with a penalty fee if the service did not materialize. That got the A380 gate construction at MIA in motion.

Airlines will indeed sign such things, even if it is rare.
a.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:15 pm

tlecam wrote:
BOS gets a decent number of JFK diversions, including some this past summer when the t-storms were brutal. AF diverted a 380 to BOS, for one.


Shortly after AF diverted, BA had 2 in 2 days. Same flight too, if I remember right. LAX-LHR. Difference is AF came in around 17:30 and so everyone saw it.

Generally speaking though, I don't believe BOS is anyone's first choice to divert an A380. There's simply nowhere to put it if the diversion becomes a termination.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:24 pm

airbazar wrote:
First of all no airline is going to sign a document committing to operating a certain type of aircraft, on a route, period but I suspect the some airlines have told Massport that they are likely to use the A380.


Oh really?

MAH4546 wrote:
A few years ago Lufthansa signed a document agreeing to A380 service to MIA with a penalty fee if the service did not materialize. That got the A380 gate construction at MIA in motion.

Airlines will indeed sign such things, even if it is rare.


MAH4546, thank you for this. I'm not sure why airbazar would speak as though they know every detail of airline route planning. I have to believe MASSPORT went forward with the construction of multiple A380 gates because of some sort of commitment like a signed contract/document from a few different carriers all wanting to bring the A380 to BOS.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:36 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
A few years ago Lufthansa signed a document agreeing to A380 service to MIA with a penalty fee if the service did not materialize. That got the A380 gate construction at MIA in motion.

Airlines will indeed sign such things, even if it is rare.


MAH4546, thank you for this. I'm not sure why airbazar would speak as though they know every detail of airline route planning. I have to believe MASSPORT went forward with the construction of multiple A380 gates because of some sort of commitment like a signed contract/document from a few different carriers all wanting to bring the A380 to BOS.


Massport must have had some sort of assurances, or at least a word of good faith that a carrier intended to start 380 operations should the necessary upgrades happen. Worst case no airline starts 380 service (is that really a bad thing?) and now Logan has 3 additional gates come online, added passenger holding areas and added club areas. This should help alleviate some of the crowding in E. I think BA and EK will be the carriers that send the 380 in. Doubt AF will do it (over the years there have been posts about their struggles with BOS).

This seems to be the most difficult project in Boston to get pictures of the construction work.
 
JeffinMass
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:02 pm

BA just announced a delay of Feb 2nd A380 service to LHR-BOS citing construction concerns. This has to do with their "Club". This would
have been the first scheduled A380 service.
 
JeffinMass
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:12 pm

Actually UA is subbing the B772 for the B753W or are they eliminating a B738 flight. Would AA begin a BOS-west coast route with a B763W, B772 or B788/9 to add excitement?
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4150
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:18 pm

B752OS wrote:
This seems to be the most difficult project in Boston to get pictures of the construction work.


If you head over to the flyertalk message board there is a thread on the BA A380 Boston topic. A user posted a really nice photo of the gates, taken from the place where the hard-stands are. It seems to be quite the structure.
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3271
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:01 pm

clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546, thank you for this. I'm not sure why airbazar would speak as though they know every detail of airline route planning. I have to believe MASSPORT went forward with the construction of multiple A380 gates because of some sort of commitment like a signed contract/document from a few different carriers all wanting to bring the A380 to BOS.


A signed agreement is not mentioned in the link below just says EK and BA expressed interest but some somewhat forward looking statements in the document sound like A380 service is inevitable when the assessment was written. https://www.massport.com/media/337677/T ... signed.pdf

Who knows for sure what went on behind the scenes.

tlecam wrote:
The remaining legacies will opportunistically add routes outside of their hub and spoke network and will pursue them. DL is probably the furthest along in this line of thinking for no other reason than their merger had a head start. I do think we'll see AA and UA follow suit. RDU is another example where this is happening. I think we will see this from urban areas that aren't hubs - BOS is probably the largest non-hub city, so it's easy to see, but there are more RDU's out there. I think PIT, CMH, AUS, and other growth cities will eventually see legacy carriers add flights. Urbanization (especially on the coasts) is another macroeconomic trend that will make this more appealing to carriers.


Bullish on DL adding more, slightly bearish on AA, and can't see a reason UA would expand beyond it hubs in BOS.

What non-hub flights does UA currently serve besides some "Air Mike" routes in the Pacific (i.e. ROR-MNL) and the Asian Fifth Freedoms which are slowly going away?
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
 
aaflyer777
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:12 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
clrd4t8koff wrote:

MAH4546, thank you for this. I'm not sure why airbazar would speak as though they know every detail of airline route planning. I have to believe MASSPORT went forward with the construction of multiple A380 gates because of some sort of commitment like a signed contract/document from a few different carriers all wanting to bring the A380 to BOS.


A signed agreement is not mentioned in the link below just says EK and BA expressed interest but some somewhat forward looking statements in the document sound like A380 service is inevitable when the assessment was written. https://www.massport.com/media/337677/T ... signed.pdf

Who knows for sure what went on behind the scenes.

tlecam wrote:
The remaining legacies will opportunistically add routes outside of their hub and spoke network and will pursue them. DL is probably the furthest along in this line of thinking for no other reason than their merger had a head start. I do think we'll see AA and UA follow suit. RDU is another example where this is happening. I think we will see this from urban areas that aren't hubs - BOS is probably the largest non-hub city, so it's easy to see, but there are more RDU's out there. I think PIT, CMH, AUS, and other growth cities will eventually see legacy carriers add flights. Urbanization (especially on the coasts) is another macroeconomic trend that will make this more appealing to carriers.


Bullish on DL adding more, slightly bearish on AA, and can't see a reason UA would expand beyond it hubs in BOS.

What non-hub flights does UA currently serve besides some "Air Mike" routes in the Pacific (i.e. ROR-MNL) and the Asian Fifth Freedoms which are slowly going away?


I agree its unlikely UA will expand in BOS but on the other hand they did just add LGA-RDU in response to DL and neither of those are hubs or strong spokes. Not sure if thats the start of a trend for UA or just a one off thing but definitely going to be interesting to see how they respond if AA enters BOS-SFO.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:01 am

chrisnh wrote:
B752OS wrote:
This seems to be the most difficult project in Boston to get pictures of the construction work.


If you head over to the flyertalk message board there is a thread on the BA A380 Boston topic. A user posted a really nice photo of the gates, taken from the place where the hard-stands are. It seems to be quite the structure.


It only really becomes visible as a terminal from the North cargo area, and gates 7A/B. Even driving by you can't get much more than a glimpse.

It's going to be a magnificent view though. Amazing views of the sunset over the city, and the whole North cargo facility. Plus unlike the rest of E, it's higher up. Very much looking forward to completion.
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:15 am

adamh8297 wrote:
A signed agreement is not mentioned in the link below just says EK and BA expressed interest but some somewhat forward looking statements in the document sound like A380 service is inevitable when the assessment was written. https://www.massport.com/media/337677/T ... signed.pdf

Who knows for sure what went on behind the scenes.


What caught my eye in that link is this paragraph from page 5:

"Up to four Group VI aircraft per day will serve Terminal E during the peak hours. Three A380s are projected to replace three 747-400 operations, one 747-8 aircraft is expected to replace one 777 aircraft operation."

When this document was released in July 2015 the 747-400 operators @ BOS were BA, LH and AF. So is that the three A380 operators? Nothing seems to add up for who currently operates a 777 and will replace that with a 747-8.

Thoughts?
 
airbazar
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:22 am

MAH4546 wrote:
A few years ago Lufthansa signed a document agreeing to A380 service to MIA with a penalty fee if the service did not materialize. That got the A380 gate construction at MIA in motion.

With all due respect and I do mean that because I think very highly of your posts, I have seen you post something like that before but you're the only one and I could never find confirmation of such a document, so I'm not buying it. I think you misinterpreted something. I do believe that there must have been a very strong message of commitment from LH but as far as actually signing a legally biding document with associated penalties, I can't find proof of such ever happening an din fact LH's delay in starting service sort of back me up. LH committed to flying the A380 to MIA some time in 2009 and the contract to build the gate was signed in November of that year. The gate was completed in the Summer of 2010:
http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/legi ... 092724.pdf
But LH only started operating in June of 2011, one year past their "commitment" date. Are you telling me that LH paid a penalty for an entire year? Either there was no penalty or it was a very insignificant penalty.
clrd4t8koff wrote:
airbazar wrote:
First of all no airline is going to sign a document committing to operating a certain type of aircraft, on a route, period but I suspect the some airlines have told Massport that they are likely to use the A380.

Oh really?

Yes, really.
FGITD wrote:
It's going to be a magnificent view though. Amazing views of the sunset over the city, and the whole North cargo facility. Plus unlike the rest of E, it's higher up. Very much looking forward to completion.

The designs show a rooftop observation deck too. I hope that happens.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:27 am

Fall of 2017 work is supposed to start on the first phase of the E expansion?
 
tjerome
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Boston Aviation - Part 10

Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:32 am

rsanzo wrote:
Does anyone know when WN is moving to Terminal B? I imagine that when those last remaining 5 WN gates in Terminal A open up, DL will be all over capacity expansion.


Original plan was 2017, but as of recently that has changed to 2019. DL hopes to get back A18 and A19.

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