New KBED-KTTN flights hit the runway

John S wrote:

As somebody who has flown that route many times since 1999, I must
disagree.**First,*ORH*has*a*much*smaller*populatio n*base*than
MetroWest*and greater Boston that Hanscom is situated in.**ORH*is*also
not*terribly*far from Windsor Locks,CT which has discount airline
service and is popular. Second, while EWR and PHL of course have many
more flights, that is not the market that this route is serving.**This
route*is*serving*people*from*North of Philadelphia and South Jersey
area that want to get to Boston and visa versa.**Third,*Hanscom*can*be
a*MUCH*better*way*of*reaching*most*of*the Boston area than General
Logan Airport, except the North Shore.**There*are no parking hassles.*
There*are*no*tunnel*hassles.**There*are*no*big*dig hassles.**There*are
no*closed*lanes.**There*is*almost*never*dead*stopp ed traffic.**There
is*no*grid*lock*almost*all*of*the*time,*which*is*t he opposite
situation getting from BOS to downtown.**There*are*no*$5*tolls just to
get to Weston.**Now*if*your*final*destination*is*Boston*o r*Chelsea,
then you may be better off with putting up with Logan's infamous
delays and detours.**And*parking*is*(for*the*moment)*free*at* Hanscom.*
Even*if*they charged you eight bucks a day, it would still be a
tremendous value of BOS.**(Shh!!*

First, enough people have to use the old Hanscom Field for it to be a
success. 2nd, I still wonder just how many folks who will travel from
the Trenton Area to the same area won't drive. It's about a five to
six hour drive depending upon how one drives, and most folks won't get
in a plane to travel that far. Add in the drive to the airport, the
having to arrive before the flight and then the wait for the luggage,
not much time would be saved. The need for a ride or a car at both
ends doesn't help much either. Adding in how limited the population is
around Trenton, I just don't see this as a viable route.

Art Clemons wrote:

John S wrote:

As somebody who has flown that route many times since 1999, I must
disagree. First, ORH has a much smaller population base than
MetroWest and greater Boston that Hanscom is situated in. ORH is also
not terribly far from Windsor Locks,CT which has discount airline
service and is popular. Second, while EWR and PHL of course have many
more flights, that is not the market that this route is serving. This
route is serving people from North of Philadelphia and South Jersey
area that want to get to Boston and visa versa. Third, Hanscom can be
a MUCH better way of reaching most of the Boston area than General
Logan Airport, except the North Shore. There are no parking hassles.
There are no tunnel hassles. There are no big dig hassles. There are
no closed lanes. There is almost never dead stopped traffic. There
is no grid lock almost all of the time, which is the opposite
situation getting from BOS to downtown. There are no $5 tolls just to
get to Weston. Now if your final destination is Boston or Chelsea,
then you may be better off with putting up with Logan's infamous
delays and detours. And parking is (for the moment) free at Hanscom.
Even if they charged you eight bucks a day, it would still be a
tremendous value of BOS. (Shh!!

First, enough people have to use the old Hanscom Field for it to be a
success.

Old Hanscom Field? Is there a new Hanscom Field that we're not aware of? If
the route wasn't a "success" surely the airline serving it would have cut
service years ago. Rather they have said that they are profitable now, but
want to focus their resources on Pittsburgh instead, and another airline has
decided to take over on the same route.


2nd, I still wonder just how many folks who will travel from
the Trenton Area to the same area won't drive.

Clearly the people that take the planes.

It's about a five to six hour drive depending upon how one drives, and
most folks won't get
in a plane to travel that far.

You may be surprised to learn about such popular airline flights as the
LGA-BOS, DCA-LGA, etc.

Add in the drive to the airport, the
having to arrive before the flight and then the wait for the luggage,
not much time would be saved. The need for a ride or a car at both
ends doesn't help much either. Adding in how limited the population is
around Trenton, I just don't see this as a viable route.

I'm curious what you would consider a viable route. The TTN-BED flights
that I've been on in the past 5 years have been consistently nearly full.
Loads have only decreased more recently when air travel in general slowed
down and as the routes became affliliated with US Airways, which also raised
the fares substantially. I think the timing of the new airline is good.

Ron Newman wrote:

Is there any place to rent a car at Hanscom? If not, I don't see how
this service can be useful. The only public transportation to Hanscom
is the #76 bus which doesn't exactly appeal to business travelers.

Just the same car rentals that have always been at BED, Avis and Hertz. I
don't see how the new airline will be any less useful than the one that has
been providing the same service.

John S wrote:

Old Hanscom Field? Is there a new Hanscom Field that we're not aware
of?**If the route wasn't a "success" surely the airline serving it
would have cut service years ago.**Rather*they*have*said*that*they*are
profitable*now,*but want to focus their resources on Pittsburgh
instead, and another airline has decided to take over on the same
route.

Few airlines give up profitable routes without government intervention.
When a route gets dumped, it's usually because the perceived return on
another is greater. I call it old Hanscom Field in part because I
remember military planes flying in and out constantly, that's an old
field.

2nd, I still wonder just how many folks who will travel from
the Trenton Area to the same area won't drive.

Clearly the people that take the planes.

Sure and some folks take the discount buses from Boston's Chinatown to
NYC's Chinatown and then public transit to Trenton. Amtrak is also
another option for folks traveling from Trenton to Boston or Boston to
Trenton. I'ld still bet that most traffic between the capitol cities
of the two states is by car.

It's about a five to six hour drive depending upon how one drives,
and most folks won't get
in a plane to travel that far.

You may be surprised to learn about such popular airline flights as
the LGA-BOS, DCA-LGA, etc.

Yes, but they're serving a large population base on both ends with more
folks likely to travel, yet once again, I'ld bet that most traffic
between those routes is by car.

Add in the drive to the airport, the
having to arrive before the flight and then the wait for the luggage,
not much time would be saved.**The*need*for*a*ride*or*a*car*at*both
ends doesn't help much either.**Adding*in*how*limited*the*population
is around Trenton, I just don't see this as a viable route.

I'm curious what you would consider a viable route.**The*TTN-BED
flights that I've been on in the past 5 years have been consistently
nearly full. Loads have only decreased more recently when air travel
in general slowed down and as the routes became affliliated with US
Airways, which also raised the fares substantially.**I*think*the
timing*of*the*new*airline*is*good.

I used to fly to Midway Airport (Chicago) regularly from Philly, the
airliner was packed, yet the airline was losing money on the flights.
Viable routes have to not only attract sufficient passengers but
sufficient passengers willing to pay a fare high enough to produce a
profit for the airline to be viable. Either not enough passengers or
not enough revenue from the passengers makes a route not viable from my
perspective.

John S wrote:

Dpending on who they really plan on serving, the impending PHL-MHT
service from Southwest (4 r/t's daily starting in July) could impact
that - at as low as $29 each way.

Good point, although this route is still a hassle free alternative. Sure PHL is
usually a piece of cake compared to BOS, but is still more of a pain for those
who can get to TTN easier (plus easy parking). MHT is a very low hassle
airport compared to most, but MHT is still a good long freeway hike from
Metrowest ....and at rush hour...forget it.

I agree.. Bedford still works better for the
Lexington/Bedford/Waltham/etc crowd but the Chelmsford/Lowell/Nashua
NH crowd would go to MHT.
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | \ |
| / | \ |
| ( ) http://www.wildwizards.net \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+

"Sean" wrote:

Funny you say that... I seem to recall the ads I've been watching (on Boston
and Philly stations) show PVD-PHL beginning before PHL-MHT - and Green isn't
all that bad of a drive to Metrowest.


It's true. PVD is in the first batch of cities Southwest will serve
from PHL. MHT is in the 2nd batch in July.
+----/|-------------------------------------+-------------------+
| | | \ |
| / | \ |
| ( ) http://www.wildwizards.net \ ICQ# 8976662 |
+--`--' ----------------------------------------+---------------+

Art Clemons wrote:

John S wrote:

Old Hanscom Field? Is there a new Hanscom Field that we're not aware
of? If the route wasn't a "success" surely the airline serving it
would have cut service years ago. Rather they have said that they are
profitable now, but want to focus their resources on Pittsburgh
instead, and another airline has decided to take over on the same
route.

Few airlines give up profitable routes without government intervention.
When a route gets dumped, it's usually because the perceived return on
another is greater.

And no doubt that SA has a higher perceived return by taking over the United
Express business that just became available for them. But the fact that
ANOTHER airline is moving in for the same route speaks for itself.

I call it old Hanscom Field in part because I
remember military planes flying in and out constantly, that's an old
field.

It's not as old as General Eddie Logan's field though.

2nd, I still wonder just how many folks who will travel from
the Trenton Area to the same area won't drive.

Clearly the people that take the planes.

Sure and some folks take the discount buses from Boston's Chinatown to
NYC's Chinatown and then public transit to Trenton. Amtrak is also
another option for folks traveling from Trenton to Boston or Boston to
Trenton. I'ld still bet that most traffic between the capitol cities
of the two states is by car.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't affect the route, only the passengers who
fly affect the route. Most traffic between UK and US is via airplane, yet
the cruise ships that also serve the route don't do so to lose money.



It's about a five to six hour drive depending upon how one drives,
and most folks won't get
in a plane to travel that far.

You may be surprised to learn about such popular airline flights as
the LGA-BOS, DCA-LGA, etc.

Yes, but they're serving a large population base on both ends with more
folks likely to travel, yet once again, I'ld bet that most traffic
between those routes is by car.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that isn't relevant. What IS relevant are
how many people willing to fly on the route.

Add in the drive to the airport, the
having to arrive before the flight and then the wait for the luggage,
not much time would be saved. The need for a ride or a car at both
ends doesn't help much either. Adding in how limited the population
is around Trenton, I just don't see this as a viable route.

I'm curious what you would consider a viable route. The TTN-BED
flights that I've been on in the past 5 years have been consistently
nearly full. Loads have only decreased more recently when air travel
in general slowed down and as the routes became affliliated with US
Airways, which also raised the fares substantially. I think the
timing of the new airline is good.

I used to fly to Midway Airport (Chicago) regularly from Philly, the
airliner was packed, yet the airline was losing money on the flights.
Viable routes have to not only attract sufficient passengers but
sufficient passengers willing to pay a fare high enough to produce a
profit for the airline to be viable. Either not enough passengers or
not enough revenue from the passengers makes a route not viable from my
perspective.

That's true and no doubt this route is viable, as SA has served it, shifting
away only when they decided to focus on a massive expansion in Pittsburgh
and also for the United Express business that ACA is leaving. As far as I
know, SA has just indefinitely postponed its exit from the market as well,
previously it was supposed to be early April.