Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fog issues have now been addressed with the new Cat III landing system, that is why airlines have added these new flights. Getting there is not an issue at all, it's an easy 10 minutes from the Pike on back roads. Certainly beats Logan, if you are anywhere west of let's say Natick.
Oh and the 7,000 feet can accommodate up to a 757 or A320/321 size plane.
Cat III is a 100 foot minimum and 700 foot visibility. You can't land in dense fog if you can't see the runway as you cross the threshold. That shuts down Logan and the New York airports all the time. Warm salt water, high humidity, and cooling air will do that.
The other runway in Worcester is 5,000 feet. You're not going to operate a 737 or 757 there. You're not legal to land on 15/33 if there's a crosswind on 11/29 so you'd have to divert. An E190 is pretty much the limit for modern commercial jets.
Cat III is a 100 foot minimum and 700 foot visibility. You can't land in dense fog if you can't see the runway as you cross the threshold. That shuts down Logan and the New York airports all the time. Warm salt water, high humidity, and cooling air will do that.
Worcester's is a Cat IIIb which is 600 ft. visibility. While Worcester actually suffers more fog days than Logan due to its high elevation, this will allow planes to go in all but the most extreme visibility conditions. Logan is shut down all the time due to fog? Certainly news to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
The other runway in Worcester is 5,000 feet. You're not going to operate a 737 or 757 there. You're not legal to land on 15/33 if there's a crosswind on 11/29 so you'd have to divert. An E190 is pretty much the limit for modern commercial jets.
1. Plenty of 737s and 757s operate at airports with only one sufficient runway (Bangor, ME comes to mind), they have at Worcester in the past and likely will in the future.
2. They can land on the 5,000 ft. runway no sweat, it's taking off that requires the 7,000 ft. main runway.
Most 737s in current operation (700/800/900/Max) can easily land on 5,000 feet of runway. So that's not a problem. However, they can't takeoff from that runway without toying with the weight.
London City (LCY) has just one runway and it's under 5,000 feet. The largest planes there are the A318 (not common with airlines here), and the A220-300 (130 passengers). British Airways actually flies an A318 between LCY and JFK, though it's all business class seats (lower weight) and stops in Ireland when departing LCY for fuel and TSA preclearance (Nonstop on the eastbound though). For the foreseeable future, the e190 is likely to be the largest regularly operated jet you see at ORH. Even then, a fully loaded/fueled e190 pushes the 7,000 foot runway limit (Takoff at maximum weight requires 6,890 foot minimum). Delta has a huge order of A220s which I think you may end up seeing at ORH someday. Honestly, I think it's an underrated game changer jet because it has a great range, is fuel efficient (21% less fuel burn compared to the similarly sized 737-300), and a capacity that will enable it to be profitable on leaner transcon and even some TATL routes from the Northeast (you could see more PVD - Europe routes). I doubt you'll see ORH to LAX or SFO anytime soon, but I think it could open doors for Worcester.
*Edit*
Key West's sole runway is 4,801 feet and Delta operates regular service to/from that runway in a 737-700. There are weight restrictions though. In Worcester's case, demand would have to warrant this type of treatment and it's not there yet.
Most 737s in current operation (700/800/900/Max) can easily land on 5,000 feet of runway. So that's not a problem. However, they can't takeoff from that runway without toying with the weight.
The idea is they can still land, knowing they will eventually be able to take off on the longer runway. Either way, it's a very rare occasion that crosswinds will force the closure of 11/29 for very long especially with an aircraft that size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
London City (LCY) has just one runway and it's under 5,000 feet. The largest planes there are the A318 (not common with airlines here), and the A220-300 (130 passengers). British Airways actually flies an A318 between LCY and JFK, though it's all business class seats (lower weight) and stops in Ireland when departing LCY for fuel and TSA preclearance (Nonstop on the eastbound though). For the foreseeable future, the e190 is likely to be the largest regularly operated jet you see at ORH. Even then, a fully loaded/fueled e190 pushes the 7,000 foot runway limit (Takoff at maximum weight requires 6,890 foot minimum). Delta has a huge order of A220s which I think you may end up seeing at ORH someday. Honestly, I think it's an underrated game changer jet because it has a great range, is fuel efficient (21% less fuel burn compared to the similarly sized 737-300), and a capacity that will enable it to be profitable on leaner transcon and even some TATL routes from the Northeast (you could see more PVD - Europe routes). I doubt you'll see ORH to LAX or SFO anytime soon, but I think it could open doors for Worcester.
*Edit*
Key West's sole runway is 4,801 feet and Delta operates regular service to/from that runway in a 737-700. There are weight restrictions though. In Worcester's case, demand would have to warrant this type of treatment and it's not there yet.
Runway requirements vary by country, and standard runways are generally shorter elsewhere. I guess that in much of Europe and elsewhere (according to one pilot), 777s (maybe it was 747s too) regularly use runways not much different than Worcester's.
The E190 is a dinosaur of an aircraft, not efficient or versatile at all given their capacity. Stuff like the A220s are very promising though, and could start a whole new era of vitality for the regional airports.
But I don't share the skepticism over the 737s, as Direct Air flew them regularly (at one point the A320s as well I believe) and the size/weight of the planes had nothing to do with their failure. I wouldn't be surprised if Jet Blue upgrades some of their current flights to that size, over time.
I'm skeptical of the success of any new service added to Worcester. I live in Southern New Hampshire and fly on average every 4-8 weeks. I almost never utilize the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in New Hampshire even though it is by far the closest to where I live. I always use Boston Logan because it has the best prices. I only care about the price of the tickets. I'm willing to drive (or ride the bus) to Logan because of the price difference. Sure the convenience of Manchester or Worcester would be nice, and it sure is quicker going through smaller airports, but I certainly won't pay extra for it. I think the convenience factor is not as much of a driving force as airport operators in Manchester and Worcester think it is. I can't really say I've been following what's going on in Worcester, but Manchester Airport has never been able to touch the prices of Boston Logan.
On a different note, I think it's silly to fly from Worcester to New York. If you're connecting at the JetBlue Hub at JFK that's one thing, but to fly to New York as your destination, that's just lazy. Why pay all that money for such a short trip. When I lived in MetroWest Massachusetts I went to Union Station in Worcester and got on a Peter Pan bus to New York for short money. Now I drive from New Hampshire to New York. Flying such a short distance seems silly. When I fly I like to be going at least 500 miles, anything less I drive.
I'm skeptical of the success of any new service added to Worcester. I live in Southern New Hampshire and fly on average every 4-8 weeks. I almost never utilize the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in New Hampshire even though it is by far the closest to where I live. I always use Boston Logan because it has the best prices. I only care about the price of the tickets. I'm willing to drive (or ride the bus) to Logan because of the price difference. Sure the convenience of Manchester or Worcester would be nice, and it sure is quicker going through smaller airports, but I certainly won't pay extra for it. I think the convenience factor is not as much of a driving force as airport operators in Manchester and Worcester think it is. I can't really say I've been following what's going on in Worcester, but Manchester Airport has never been able to touch the prices of Boston Logan.
On a different note, I think it's silly to fly from Worcester to New York. If you're connecting at the JetBlue Hub at JFK that's one thing, but to fly to New York as your destination, that's just lazy. Why pay all that money for such a short trip. When I lived in MetroWest Massachusetts I went to Union Station in Worcester and got on a Peter Pan bus to New York for short money. Now I drive from New Hampshire to New York. Flying such a short distance seems silly. When I fly I like to be going at least 500 miles, anything less I drive.
Depends on what your time is worth. My employer bills at 180+/hr +17% on expenses. If I can show up to Manch or Worc 30 minutes before my flight and get to NYC in under 90min with boarding, then flying saves me time and the client money. Plus I can work in flight / at the airport if my deadline is slipping.
If I'm not 'on the clock', I'm driving to CT/NY and taking the train in.
Any truth to the rumor these flights were added by city leaders to handle the future anticipated masses coming from far away to attend Triple AAA Red Sox games at the new stadium? Would seem to be as plausible as the narrative that the new 100+M publicly funded stadium will pay for itself.
I'm skeptical of the success of any new service added to Worcester. I live in Southern New Hampshire and fly on average every 4-8 weeks. I almost never utilize the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in New Hampshire even though it is by far the closest to where I live. I always use Boston Logan because it has the best prices. I only care about the price of the tickets. I'm willing to drive (or ride the bus) to Logan because of the price difference. Sure the convenience of Manchester or Worcester would be nice, and it sure is quicker going through smaller airports, but I certainly won't pay extra for it. I think the convenience factor is not as much of a driving force as airport operators in Manchester and Worcester think it is. I can't really say I've been following what's going on in Worcester, but Manchester Airport has never been able to touch the prices of Boston Logan.
No Logan did not always have the best prices and you might still from time to time find a lower fare out of MHT or PVD. But back when Southwest ran the show at MHT (wasn't at Logan yet), fares were consistently less there and people regularly came from the Boston area for both price and convenience. You also have to factor in parking costs at Logan. The economy lot is $26 a day there. In Worcester it is $7/day right in front of the terminal! Those savings add up very fast, and some (especially those travelling with families) absolutely will pay a premium for convenience. As the commute to Logan on the Pike grows worse and worse by the year, you will see more and more people say "screw it" and pay the few extra $$$ to fly out of Worcester. The DTW and JFK flights will be largely business as well, where passengers will not be necessarily feeling the extra cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSK Fan
On a different note, I think it's silly to fly from Worcester to New York. If you're connecting at the JetBlue Hub at JFK that's one thing, but to fly to New York as your destination, that's just lazy. Why pay all that money for such a short trip. When I lived in MetroWest Massachusetts I went to Union Station in Worcester and got on a Peter Pan bus to New York for short money. Now I drive from New Hampshire to New York. Flying such a short distance seems silly. When I fly I like to be going at least 500 miles, anything less I drive.
Again, you are forgetting a large segment of business travelers. Down for a meeting and back in a day, the flight is usually covered. I'd also guess that JFK isn't the final destination for a large share of potential travelers, that is JetBlue's main hub and will simply use that airport to connect to elsewhere.
Any truth to the rumor these flights were added by city leaders to handle the future anticipated masses coming from far away to attend Triple AAA Red Sox games at the new stadium?
No Logan did not always have the best prices and you might still from time to time find a lower fare out of MHT or PVD. But back when Southwest ran the show at MHT (wasn't at Logan yet), fares were consistently less there and people regularly came from the Boston area for both price and convenience. You also have to factor in parking costs at Logan. The economy lot is $26 a day there. In Worcester it is $7/day right in front of the terminal! Those savings add up very fast, and some (especially those travelling with families) absolutely will pay a premium for convenience. As the commute to Logan on the Pike grows worse and worse by the year, you will see more and more people say "screw it" and pay the few extra $$$ to fly out of Worcester. The DTW and JFK flights will be largely business as well, where passengers will not be necessarily feeling the extra cost.
Again, you are forgetting a large segment of business travelers. Down for a meeting and back in a day, the flight is usually covered. I'd also guess that JFK isn't the final destination for a large share of potential travelers, that is JetBlue's main hub and will simply use that airport to connect to elsewhere.
You're absolutely right, I can see how it would make a lot more sense for business travelers. I work 7 miles from where I live and my job never requires travel. Anytime I'm traveling it's for fun. Compared to most business travelers I don't fly very often, but as far as people who are traveling on their own dime for fun I do so way more often then most people and am sensitive to price. I agree parking at Logan is way expensive. I'm either getting a ride from a friend / family member, parking for free at the Nashua bus station and riding the bus to Logan, or if it's just a quick weekend trip the Channelside parking lot near the Boston Waterfront has $5 per day weekend parking and I can just jump on the T to Logan.
I'm sure this is a different topic for a different thread, but I don't really care what Southwest is charging. I know I'm probably in the minority on this but I can't stand their boarding process and never fly them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
